SIP Court case help

lafferdog

Posting this again with point 14 removed, Is there anything I need to add, any help would be massively appreciated.


1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3) The hatched markings in the car park that are in question are severely faded, and due to the nature of the floor in the carpark are not very visible. The area where the hatched markings are does not block any through passage and so parking there would cause no inconvenience. I have attached photos to support this.

4) The appeal process which was explained on the ticket was followed by the defendant but was not followed through by the prosecution and at no time was the £60 fine offered as described on the ticket.

5) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

6) As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

7) This claim merely states: “parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

8) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

10) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

10) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

11) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

12) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

13. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement or even any licence to park without a permit, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case held, ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum without agreement on the charge and any issue of trespass would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. The amount claimed is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty. Even if all the conditions had been met to disengage the penalty, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable ( ParkingEye v Somerfield).
In summary this case differs to 'the Beavis case' as:
i) The Private Parking Charge has not followed an "effectively binding" code of practice.
ii) The Claimant has no commercial justification
iii) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
iv) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
v) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

14) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

15) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

16. In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt, and also refused my asking for alternative dispute resolution via POPLA.

17. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

18. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

3) The hatched markings in the car park that are in question are severely faded, and due to the nature of the floor in the carpark are not very visible. The area where the hatched markings are does not block any through passage and so parking there would cause no inconvenience. I have attached photos to support this, showing the fact that there are no signs at that spot, so no contractual charge was offered nor agreed, to pay any parking charge there. It appeared to be an unmarked area and certainly not a chargeable bay.

Is my alteration correct? No sign at that corner/area by those faded lines? If so, add it and the rest looks like it covers the bases, based on my skim-read.

lafferdog

That looks good to me

Will update with notes to the images and scans I will be adding then repost on here.

thanks loads for the help

lafferdog

I went to the car park today to get some pics and it has been closed, just wondered if that is in anyway something that can help my case?

The_Deep

Take heart, they are not the sharpest knives in the box


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=70211430

Coupon-mad

And take even more heart from this SIP Court report today:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5652565

lafferdog

that has given me some encouragement, it is bloody stressful and reading these posts help.

lafferdog

ok so the time has come to submit my defence.
I havent received anything from Gladstones and deadline is next week, so hoping they might have left it too late.

Am I right in thinking I just send a copy to Gladstones and a copy to court?

Here it is anyway, would really appreciate a thumbs up or advice from anyone before I send on tuesday

1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3) The hatched markings in the car park that are in question are severely faded (photos attached), and due to the nature of the floor in the carpark are not very visible. The area where the hatched markings are does not block any through passage and so parking there would cause no inconvenience. I have attached photos to support this, showing the fact that there are no signs at that spot, so no contractual charge was offered nor agreed, to pay any parking charge there. It appeared to be an unmarked area and certainly not a chargeable bay.

4) The appeal process which was explained on the ticket was followed by the defendant but was not followed through by the prosecution and at no time was the £60 fine offered as described on the ticket (copy of ticket with this highlighted).

5) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

6) As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

7) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

8) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

9) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

10) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

11) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

12) The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement or even any licence to park without a permit, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case held, ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum without agreement on the charge and any issue of trespass would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. The amount claimed is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty. Even if all the conditions had been met to disengage the penalty, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable ( ParkingEye v Somerfield).
In summary this case differs to 'the Beavis case' as:
i) The Private Parking Charge has not followed an "effectively binding" code of practice.
ii) The Claimant has no commercial justification
iii) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
iv) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
v) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

13) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

14) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

15) In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt, and also refused my asking for alternative dispute resolution via POPLA.

16) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

17) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

a court case I have coming up in June with SIP in manchester.

As it is Manchester, you have every chance, as their Judges seem to have sussed parking firms, more than some other courts (e.g. Swansea being dreadful at the moment, and Liverpool & Wigan not great either).

But, it's not 'defence' time (and you can't introduce new things you didn't have in your first defence). It's Witness Statement (WS) and evidence time, although you said the deadline was next week yet in another post you said the actual hearing was this Thursday? Have you filed your WS in time?

That reads more like a defence or skeleton argument (the latter is something you can put together before the hearing but is separate).

If you have not filed WS, have a look at the NEWBIES thread post #2. It's just the facts, not the legal arguments. Show us first, and tell us what evidence you will be filing too so we can make sure you aren't missing anything.

Have you received their WS and evidence, from Gladstones? You MUST file a WS, and I'm concerned about the timeline here.

This was your defence at the start, so what have you filed since this?

On the xx xx xx I returned to my car to find a ticket issued for parking on the hatched area of the car park. When I left the car I wasn't sure if the hatched area was in use or valid as it was so worn out and parking there wouldn't have caused any obstruction. I asked a couple of other people parking if they thought it was ok to park there and they agreed it looked fine and they had seen cars park there before.

Further to that there are no markings anywhere in the car park so I assumed they were redundant and not in use. Wrong to assume maybe, but that was the impression I had.

The ticket offered the opportunity to appeal which I did straight away with photos of the area in question. Around 10 days later I received a letter saying I now owed £100, and there was no acknowledgement of my appeal letter, so I wrote back to say I had appealed and resent the original appeal letter.

On the xx xx xx I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors saying I then owed £150. I was away on holiday for 10 days after this, and then returned to find the Claim Form I am responding to now.

From my point of view I appealed the ticket which I honestly felt was not fair, I have attached images of the hatched area, which I noticed has recently been repainted. If I was to have had my appeal rejected and offered the £60 that is part of their process I would have paid it. However, my letters were ignored and it was escalated to where it is now despite effort on my part to follow their process. The time and effort this has caused me now feels like it out weights any inconvenience I caused leaving my car where I did which is why I would like to dispute the whole amount.

I have attached all my letters of correspondence and the photos that I took that show the worn out hatched area and that there are no other markings anywhere in the carpark which made me think it was fine to park there.

lafferdog

HI,

My hearing is next month, i read the submission of defence date as that. I submitted my witness statement a while ago, which I have pasted here previously.

So i am right that this is what I submit as my defence?

sorry for any confusion.