Fine after 30seconds

jrc123

yeee haw!!!! :-)

thanks guys

jrc123

Hi all

so here is my defence
The main points I am mentioning are:

byelaws, IPC grace periods/time frame to read the sign, insufficient information provided in the LBC.

I did appeal originally stating I pulled over not feeling well read the sign, did not accept and then drove off.

Is there anything else I should delete or add?
It is a bit long could I take out some parts?

---

Claim Number XXX
Between:
XXX Limited v XXX

I am XXXXXXXXXXX, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX. I currently reside at XXXXXXXXXXXXX.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:
1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a) The Claimant has not complied with pre-action protocol, under the Practice Direction as a compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217; was not issued despite the Defendant's requests for further information.
(b) It contained very little information and merely referred to the "PCN Number", Date of charge, Location and Charge Amount of £160; and requesting payment before 14 days. No further information was provided about the claim, with no contravention or photographs.
(c) The letter was dated 25 July 2017. The letter was delivered by the Post Office on 28 July 2017 before the weekend, which left us with only 5 working days to consult on the matter with the relevant authorities or seek legal counsel.
(d) I responded on 31 July 2017 requesting further information and a breakdown of the costs 1st class post but no acknowledgement or response received from Gladstones Solicitors Limited. Instead, on XX Gladstones Solicitors Limited issued a Claim Form in the County Court Business Centre.
(e) This is a known speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The Claimant!!!8217;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.
(f) On the 27th November a letter from Gladstones was received again which again looked like template letter.
(g) I requested the following information again by letter and sent by 1st class post on 6th December and this information was still not provided:
1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 !!!8220;establishing yourself as the creditor!!!8221;
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

2. The Claim Form issued on the 4th April 2018 by Gladstones Solicitors Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction.

a. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. It only contained the following information:

(a) The defendant's name and address
(b) The Vehicle Registration Number.
(c) The date of the alleged parking incident (time not provided)
(d) The location of where the alleged parking incident occurred
(e) High level outstanding amount and break down of costs.

It does not detail or provide the following:

(a) Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident. In fact the Particulars of Claim state that "The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/ or is the keeper of the Vehicle". It is not clear under what basis the Claim is being made against me here.
(b) Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
(c) How long or proof that the car was actually parked at the said location by the Defendant
(d) Proof that any signs detailing parking restrictions were clearly visible at the time that the car was parked at the stated location (i.e. they were not covered or out of view)
(e) The vehicle type and colour.
(f) Detailed information on why the charge arose !!!8211; i.e. basis for the claim.
(g) Explanation of the charges and what exactly it relates to. This claim merely states: !!!8220;parking charges/ damages and indemnity costs if applicable!!!8221; 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'.
(h) They have stated they are seeking interest but provide no details on the period this relates to (the defendant clearly told the Claimant that the debt was denied. The Defendant is not therefore liable for the Claimant!!!8217;s delay in bringing a claim).


3. The Defendant further denies that any contract was formed because the driver did not "park" according to the ordinary meaning of that word or according to the definition in POFA; the driver merely drove into the site, read the sign which wasn!!!8217;t accepted and exited the site. A period of only 2 minutes passing between the time of entry and the time of exit recorded by the Claimant. The driver cannot therefore have accepted any contractual terms (if any, which is denied) that were offered by the Claimant. Of which there is evidence shown in photos of the driver reading the sign, not accepting the contract by driving off.

The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period (15.1 & 15.2) must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.

4. Photographic evidence shows the claimant going to read the sign at the time of 09:12 and not accepting the contract and leaving the site at 09.14. This is within the time frame mentioned in point 3 prior.

5. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the IPC Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) The signage was not visible, any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(c) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(d) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
(e) SIGNAGE SIZE QUOTE?!?

6. The Claimant!!!8217;s signage with the largest font at this site states !!!8220;This Road is Private Property. Any parking is prohibited at all times in accordance with Railway Byelaw 14. Any Trespassers will force legal action. 24 hour access for railway use!!!8221;. The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case. The case should also be brought forward by the landowner within 6months of which this time has now passed.

7. In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretation the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply.

8. In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the !!!8216;contravention!!!8217; according to the Claimant is already committed.

9. The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up.

In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but as PCM UK were the claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8 ,


10. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) sum pursued exceeds £100.

11. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is unclear whether Parking Control Management (PCM) Limited hold a legitimate contract on this road. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

12. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

13. The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr XXXXXXX (claimants legal representative who signed the form) is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. The defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

10. Railway Byelaws !!!8211;

(a) As this land comes under railway byelaws this is not a claim to be brought by the Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd but by the Train Operating Company which leases the land/or the landowner and the correct procedure is for such proceedings to be pursued in the magistrate!!!8217;s court, not the county court.
(b) The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case.
(c) The IPC Code of Conduct 9.1 states; It is your (PCM Ltd) responsibility to establish whether any land upon which you operate is subject to any Byelaws. Where land is subject to Byelaws you must ensure that your practices are in accordance with them or, alternatively, that you operate a scheme that is not prohibited by them. PCM have broken this code as stated in the points above.

14. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a)Issued an erroneous claim to the defendant, rendering their administration questionable.
(b) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
(c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated xxxxxxx requesting further information and details of the claim.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.

Weasel_Watcher

Should you not pointout in point 10 that the opportunity has now passed to bring this to a magistrate's court anyway (>6 months)?

jrc123

HI Weasel

I put it in point 6 but can add it in point 10 does come under the BPA CoP?

thanks

Anyone else?

Weasel_Watcher

jrc123 wrote: »

HI Weasel

I put it in point 6 but can add it in point 10 does come under the BPA CoP?

thanks

Anyone else?

So you have. That'll teach me to skim-read

Apologies.

tenchy

Just been browsing this thread and links to other forums. Assuming the most recent posts still relate to the original post - and maybe this has already been asked - but surely the actions of the scammers in this case pretty much amount to criminality, and I mean real criminality? Essentially it's attemptimg to obtain money by deception, or is there more to it than that?

jrc123

hi tenchy yes that is what they are doing.
what do ou suggest?

tenchy

jrc123 wrote: »

hi tenchy yes that is what they are doing.
what do ou suggest?

Well normally in the case of real crime you'd report it to the police.

nosferatu1001

WHo will say it is civil

Trading standards would be a better bet.

jrc123

I can do that after - I will be thinking of counterclaiming