PACE/Gladstone court claim

itsgeekchic

OK, here's what i've got so far. Ignore the numbering, i'll sort that all out once it's finalised.


2) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant
b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matterim Form
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence

3) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver.

4) 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.
4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.!

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.

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) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is much less than the claim).

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 a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage as the area was badly lit and sparsely signed, with different bays showing different company signage for various businesses surrounding the car park.
Due to the bad lighting and late time of the parking in winter the ticket issued by the claimant was not in fact seen by the driver until they had reversed out of the bay and started driving forwards towards the exit. I believe this shows just how insufficient the lighting situation in the carpark was.

15) Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, and rights of way, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

16) If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged events were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

17) In the absence of any signage that contractually bind a driver then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

19) This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

20) 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.

22) 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.

I suggest 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''.

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

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 12th June 2017.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

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 confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

Coupon-mad

Yes that looks perfectly OK as a Gladstones defence. Come back at each stage.

itsgeekchic

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes that looks perfectly OK as a Gladstones defence. Come back at each stage.

Thanks Coupon-mad! Will keep you updated.

itsgeekchic

OK, i've received my Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track from the courts and Gladstones one. I've filled it all in and im going to send it back this week.

Gladstone has asked for the case to be heard on papers only. Is this something I should agree to or not?

I've got a fair amount of social anxiety and am terrible at confrontation so personally I would prefer this but if i've got a better chance by going to hearing then I will.

greatgimpo

I'll always say this is a rubbish money-grabbing industry where WE have to do all the running, researching, letter writing, worrying, and what for? A level playing field. No government wants to outlaw these stupid practices, as they take their cut eventually, whoever wins.

Coupon-mad

Gladstone has asked for the case to be heard on papers only. Is this something I should agree to or not?

Nope, sorry, you have a VERY good chance of winning at a hearing.

This is a trick played by Gladstones, do not complete the N159. DO NOT AGREE.

To find other threads telling you exactly what to do, how to handle this rubbish, and how those people got on (and won) before you, search:

Gladstones N159

itsgeekchic

Quick question. My husband is the RK and the original NTK and LBC came to him, but as i have been the one responding to all paperwork since the NTK a second LBC was sent with my name (although this took months to come), does this change anything and how does it affect whether he has to be at the court hearing?

Coupon-mad

What, they sent the claim to you even though you husband is the keeper - is it because you've gone and said you were the driver? It's your case to defend then, nothing to do with your OH, although he can accompany you/be a witness if it helps.

itsgeekchic

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What, they sent the claim to you even though you husband is the keeper - is it because you've gone and said you were the driver? It's your case to defend then, nothing to do with your OH, although he can accompany you/be a witness if it helps.

I never said that I was the driver but I did sign my name at the bottom. All my letters to them were just requesting more information etc as per the Newbie thread here, I never talked about any particulars or anything that happened.

Does this change anything about what I should include in letters to the court?

I would like to keep my husband out of it if possible as he freelances long hours and taking any time off requires getting all sorts of favours called in etc that we try to save for holidays.

Coupon-mad

You should have done all replies/appeals in the keeper's name (not yours) as advised in the NEWBIES thread. Big mistake.

If you were the driver you've made it obvious enough by replying instead of him.