Court claim - PCM (Gladstones)

pizzle123

Hi Guys and Gals.
I understand you must have newbies like me on here all the time asking for advice. And I'm sorry if this is another one of those situations, but I guess we're all in the same boat right.

I've been doing lots of searching around and have found some great advice and template material. BUT, I just wanted to make sure I am using the correct content for my particular case and was hoping some of you could take a look and maybe help me in the right direction?......

OK, so I had a parking fine from PCM (Gladstones are now pushing things to court). I have ignored all letters etc up until now, where I have just received a claim form (see attached). I have filed my acknowledgement and have stated that I wish to defend the entire case.

I am basically wanting to find out exactly what I should put in my defense? And if my circumstances differ from the norm? - It was a private car park for a block of flats my friend lives at.

Any help and / or advice is greatly appreciated!


(I'm a new user, so the forum isn't allowing me to post a pic or link to the court letter! Not very helpful!)


I was looking at using something similar to this as my in-depth defense spiel (Obviously changing where appropriate)....

Preliminary matters.

1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:!

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant
3. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
(1) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
(2) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
issuing proceedings.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.



Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following
reasons:

(1).
It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the
time of the alleged incident.

(2).
The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the
strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for
the driver’s alleged breach.
c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent
signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered
keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the
'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.

(3)
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable
the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged
contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

e) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing
due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and
‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f) On the 19th Audust 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed
to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

(4)
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
a) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
issuing proceedings.

(5)
The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx asking for:
i) Full particulars of the parking charges
ii) Who the party was that contracted with ES Parking.
Iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that ES Parking had their authority.
v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of
this sum
vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to
provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
vii) To provide a copy of the signs that ES Parking can evidence were on site and which contended
formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the
vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded.
Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage
terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as
contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
As Gladsones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private
parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks
leave to amend the Defence.

(6).
ES Parking Enforcements are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they
do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to
bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has
failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the
location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its
contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any
charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

(7)
a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct
that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost
with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4
specifically disallows.
b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the
keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(8)
The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and
contrary to the Code of Practice.
c) The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the windscreen,
therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under
Schedule 4 of POFA.
d) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent
letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements
of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(9)
The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the
parties and no contract was established.

(a) The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to
the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and
accessible.

(10)
(a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery
action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which
suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained
charges of £25 to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged
'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an
alleged £100 debt.
d) Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) he Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

11). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details,
facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there
any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty
rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant
withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden
in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to
have seen'.


The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed
course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


(Name) (Signature) (Date)!

Coupon-mad

Welcome! This is not a bad start except for the littering of 'ES Parking Enforcements' in your #5 and #6, yet you said your scumbag ex-clamper adversary is 'PCM'. A completely different company.

And the defence has nothing to assist the Judge to even set the scene, say what you think it is about. Not even about whether it's a claim for not displaying a permit, and whether the car has a permit, or whether the car has more than one insured driver and therefore on the balance of probabilities, there is nothing to tip the balance of evidence as to who was driving.

Need some facts in a defence, at the start, or it's all a wall of generic wording.

Is it a residential car park of flats where the drier had permission to park? If so what does the resident's lease say about the right to park? Or where was it and what is the 'contravention'?

You can show us any pics by simply breaking the URL link and/or changing http to hxxp.

pizzle123

Hi Coupon-mad. Thanks for your reply.

Ah yes, I should’ve thought of breaking the link. Here it is then - http /i346.photobucket.com/albums/p419/pizzlesq/20170728_133937_zpsaarndbdh.jpg

Hopefully that works now! But let me know if not.


Yes, I'll be changing the scumbag name to PCM as and when I go through. The extract was more to ensure I was on the right tracks really. I have little knowledge and experience with all this, so didn't want to start copying and pasting a completely irrelevant load of text. But, by the sound of your response, I'm off to an OK start.

I'm planning on going back to the carpark in question to get some pictures of signs etc, in case this helps in anyway. But, what would you suggest I start the defence with then, to make it a bit more bespoke to my case?

(P.s. - Yes, the flat owner did have an allocated parking space. He has moved since though, so not sure It'll be an easy task to find out the ins and outs of the contract side of things).

pizzle123

Also, what should I say in the defense summery? Do I need to go in to specifics, or keep it very simple?

So far I have this saved -

"The claimant's claim is denied.
The claim discloses no basis upon which the defendant has any
legal obligation to the claimant."

Does this sound OK?

Loadsofchildren123

Were you displaying any sort of permit (your defence talks about no photos of the dash/windscreen, and complains there were no instructions on how to validly display one - both of which would indicate that you were)


Were you in your friend's space or a visitor space?


You are going to have to show that your friend was entitled to the space you parked in if it was his space, or that visitor parking was permitted and under what terms.


Has he still got his tenancy? If not, can he get a copy from the agent? Or can he ask them to contact the landlord on his behalf? A decent ex-landlord should help as long as it doesn't put him to too much trouble - even if the landlord can't help with a copy of the tenancy he can confirm that the tenancy came with the parking rights and that his leasehold title gives him exclusive rights to the space and contains no obligation to display a permit.

pizzle123

No I wasn't displaying any permit. I wasn't actually parked ion any kind of space to be honest with you. It was an area where you can fit a car, but isn't an 'official parking space' (Everyone used to park there if it was available).

My friend no longer lives at the place, but he (and his girlfriend) also have court cases coming up for similar situations within the same car park!

I would say it may be tricky to obtain a copy of the tenancy agreement. And to be honest, It might be pointless if I wasn't even parked in an official parking space anyway?

I'm really not sure of the best rout to take. I feel I should focus on one strong argument, rather than loads of template material.

Also not sure what I should enter in my defense form.

Hmmm, am I out of my league a bit?

System

am I out of my league a bit?

Strictly speaking no as it is for PCM to prove their case and not you to prove theirs. And since they use cheap paralegals (which they shouldn't) they could easily be Gladstoned (google it)

Was the landlord a large housing group as we may have heard of it?

pizzle123

My friend had a mortgage for the flat in question, but the housing group is Grand Central Management PLC (I think) and he had to pay maintenance fees.

OK, I have just tweaked my defence a bit more. Do you htink this will be good enough to submit? Or are there any areas which any of you would suggest I look at?......

Defence

Preliminary matters.

1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service has identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:!

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant
3. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
(1) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
(2) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
issuing proceedings.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.



Statement of Defence

I am Peter Campbell, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

(1).
It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

(2).
The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.

(3)
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence.
In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

e) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing
due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and
‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
f) On the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed
to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.


(4)
The defendant wrote to the claimant on 01/05/2017 asking for:
i) Full particulars of the parking charges
ii) Who the party was that contracted with Parking Control Management UK Ltd.
Iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that Parking Control Management UK Ltd had their authority.
v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of
this sum
vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to
provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
vii) To provide a copy of the signs that Parking Control Management UK Ltd can evidence were on site and which contended
formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the
vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded.
Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage
terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as
contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the pre action protocol.
As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors who’s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private
parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks
leave to amend the Defence.

(5).
Parking Control Management UK Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.
a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has
failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the
location in question
c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its
contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any
charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

(7)
a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(8)
The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b) The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and
contrary to the Code of Practice.
c) The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the windscreen,
therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under
Schedule 4 of POFA.
d) In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(9)
The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the
parties and no contract was established.

(a) The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

(10)
(a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25 to the original £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
d) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
e) The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

11). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.


The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed
course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.


I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

System

My friend had a mortgage for the flat in question

I would say it may be tricky to obtain a copy of the tenancy agreement.

Did he have a mortgage (and a lease) or did he rent (and have a tenancy)? They are different.

Also is this the place in Aylesbury?

pizzle123

Sorry my mistake. Yes, he owned the flat and had a mortgage.

And yes this is in Aylesbury. Well known for the tickets.

I'm just about to enter my defence online, but the box will only allow 122 lines! Do I need to input my full defence at this point?

Umkomaas

I'm just about to enter my defence online, but the box will only allow 122 lines! Do I need to input my full defence at this point?

I think it will allow attachments via the portal? Or is an email acceptable to them? So save as a .pdf file, have your reference details in the defence and the covering note and attach.

Call the CCBC in a couple of days to make sure it has been received.