PCM ticket for resident of this parking - please advice!!! Claim form received !

masani

Hello, I have received a parking ticket at the private land parking attached to my development and operated by PCM - basically some strange to me person has blocked my parking bay, so once I have arrived I have left my car on the side (to not block or disturb anyone else) and went to ask my neighbours if there maybe a guest who has visited them and parked on my bay. It took me about 10mins, once I came back the strange car was not there and I have found ticket behind my windscreen!
I have appealed it with explanation that I am a resident of this place and I have my bay which was blocked by someone! My car insurance says clearly that my car needs to be kept on the residential parking not on the road - they have replied they don't care as i should find space elsewhere, really?! Today I have received Claim Form from Gladstones Solicitors LTD and County Court Business Centre (I have made review, very dodgy place). Shall I take it further or never reply? Please advice!

Quentin

If the claim form is from Northampton county court then it's not dodgy!!

Go now to the newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum for advice on dealing with a court claim.

There is a link to a guide to acknowledging the claim.

Do that first to buy an extra 14 days to get the initial defence in

masani

Hey Quentin, thanks for a tip - english is not my first language so I struggle a bit to understand it all properly. Not sure if I should make a counterclaim ?

Coupon-mad

No, not a counter-claim.

Follow what post #2 of the NEWBIES thread tells you about doing the 'AOS' on MCOL first. Then copy another Gladstones residential defence by searching the forum for those 3 words.

Show us your defence copied after you have read a few other PCM or Gladstones defences.

masani

Thank you! I will do it now and let you know once I have found proper defence I am so glad I have found this forum

masani

Hello Guys, I am back ! I have checked the forum and found a way how to deal with it. I have prepared a draft defense, please take a look if it has sense and if you can correct mistakes as English is not my first language and I struggle a bit to understand it all, so writing will be even more difficult. I have copied few points from other defenses I have found similar to mine. I can't attach picture of Particulars of Claim that are visible on the Claim Form, so I will write down quickly what it says on the bottom. Thank you a lot for any help!! Deadline is due 28th of August.

---

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXX
Between: Parking Control Management (UK) Limited v XXXXX

---

Defence Statement

I am XXXX, the Defendant in this matter and the leaseholder of allocated parking bay „X“ where the vehicle with the registration XXXXXXX has right to be parked in the day and night time. I currently reside at 2 Ash Close, XXXX.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. Their Solicitor, Gladstones, is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical claims for parking firms whether there is cause of action or not. The Particulars of Claim contain no detail and divulge no cause of action. It details only:

I. The Defendant, who is the registered keeper and not identified as the driver at the alleged time.
II. The Vehicle Registration Number
III. The date and place of the alleged incident.
IV. Outstanding amount and break down of costs.

It does not detail:
I. Proof or confirmation of the driver at the date of the alleged incident.
II. Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged date.
III. Any indication of the time the vehicle was parked or for how long or proof that the car was actually parked.
IV. The vehicle type and colour.
V. Why the charge arose.

2. Therefore the Claim Form is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds and reasoning for the Claimants case. The Particulars of Claim fail to meet the requirements of CPR 16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 as there is nothing that specifies how the ‘parking terms’ were breached.

2.1 The Claim has disclosed no clear cause of action to give rise to any debt and merely states ‘parking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable’ which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought.

2.2 The Particulars of Claim fails to establish a cause of action, which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific Defense. It just states ‘terms of parking’ that does not provide 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 terms of parking were nor anything that can be considered a fair or reasonable exchange of information.

2.3 Because of this, the Defendant had to cover all eventualities in defending such a ‘copy and paste’ claim, which has caused significant distress and has denied their fair chance to defend this Claim in an informed and proper way.


3. The Defendant is denied that has received any kind of information or correspondence from the Claimant or their Solicitor since the alleged incident had place. The first letter received from the Claimant, was the Claim Form filed by their Legal Representative Gladstones Solicitors, therefore Defendant had no chance to file response or explanation for the alleged claim.

4. The Defendant, as a legal tenant of the 2 Ash Close XXXX property since August 2015, confirms to have individual right to park their vehicle on allocated parking bay with valid parking permit. The alleged incident has occured because of lack of proper service provided by the Claimnat.

4.1 On the day of alleged incident the Defendant has found their parking bay blocked by unknown vehicle without valid permit presented, therefore could not park their vehicle in the allocated parking bay.

4.2 The Defendant‘s vehicle has been therefore left on the side of the residential parking area, where did not caused any kind of obstruction at that time for other users of the parking area.

4.3 The Defendant spoke to their neighbours regarding the obstruction of their parking bay, as it is common in this area, that random drivers or visitors obstruct random bays with their vehicles (whichever is free at the time).

4.4 Once returned to the residential parking zone, the Defendant has found their parking bay with no obstruction, but also has noticed the Penalty Charge Notice applied into their vehicle.

4.5. The PCN has been appealed by Defendant, hoping it will be considered in a proper way, that the Defendant became a victim in this case. The copy of tenancy agreement, proof of the valid permit and driving license with residential address has been provided. The appeal has been naturally rejected.

5. There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in punitively penalizing residents for legitimately using parking spaces in accordance with their overriding Lease, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is employed for the benefit of residents. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and ‘out of all proportion to any legitimate interest’ to fine residents for using in a proper way their parking spaces.

6. The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders. Instead, a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

7. It is denied that any ‘parking charges/damages and indemnity costs’ (whatever they may be) as stated on the Particulars of the Claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. The Particulars of the Claim provide no statement to the actual nature of the Claim and the Defendant does not believe these Particulars to be compliant with the Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 nor Practice Direction 16 7.3-7.5, inhibiting the ability of the Defendant to provide a proper comprehensive and conclusive Defence.

8. The Claimant Legal Representative is known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details or even checking for a true cause of action. HM Courts and Tribunals Service has identified over 1000 similarly poorly produced claims and the Gladstones Solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

8.1 The Defendants believes that the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such this is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the Court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has compelling reason to believe that this is a Claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence until the last possible opportunity to my detriment, as an unrepresented Defendant.

9. The Defendant submits, that the £50 legal representatives cost have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts as part of their roboclaim litigation model in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct. There is no real legal work presented, therefore the Claimant has no right to request cover of their the legal costs.

10. The Defendant denies any Claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons above. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. Defendant is keeping records of any costs incurred during this matter.

11. I request that 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 20/09/2016 where a similar Claim was struck out without a hearing due to Gladstones template Particulars of Claim being ‘incoherent’, failing to comply with CPR16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent Claim in law.’ This Court is invited to strike out this Claim as having no prospect of success.

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

---

"The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXXX ('the Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 19/02/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Willow Crt & Ash Close
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £4.49 pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.

masani

Thread up ! Please guys advice Thankssss

Coupon-mad

I have received a parking ticket at the private land parking attached to my development and operated by PCM - basically some strange to me person has blocked my parking bay, so once I have arrived I have left my car on the side (to not block or disturb anyone else) and went to ask my neighbours if there maybe a guest who has visited them and parked on my bay. It took me about 10mins, once I came back the strange car was not there and I have found ticket behind my windscreen!

Look out for that same car again and again.

It makes you wonder if it belongs to the PPC employee - park in a resident's space, hide, then when they come back and park 'out of bay' and go knocking on doors, the employee can then run out of hiding and put a PCN on the car and drive off. Easy scam for them, absolute scum ex-clampers.

Have you read Johnersh's recent defence about residential own space cases? The one with clear headings, it's in the NEWBIES thread post #2 and was written by a solicitor.

By the way, you are doing a brilliant job - a good example of hard work by someone for whom English is not your first language but you are making an effort to write a court defence in unfamiliar language - good for you!!

masani

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Look out for that same car again and again.

It makes you wonder if it belongs to the PPC employee - park in a resident's space, hide, then when they come back and park out of bay and go knocking on doors, run out of hiding and put a PCN on the car and driver off. Easy scam for them.

Have you read Johnersh's recent defence about residential own space cases? The one with clear headings, it's in the NEWBIES thread post #2 and was written by a solicitor.

By the way, you are doing a brilliant job - a good example of hard work by someone for whom English is not your first language but you are making an effort to write a court defence in unfamiliar language - good for you!!

Thank you a lot for your kind words - I am trying my best, so would appreciate a lot if someone kind can take a look and correct me if something isn't right

I am not sure about point 4 of my defense - shall I briefly explain there what has happened (what I did already) or it is not adviced?

I will take a look at this defense and see if I can use it in mine Thanks!

Coupon-mad

I think your point #4 is OK; it is good to set out the facts of the case. You are the honest party here - I still suspect that car belongs to the ticketer, keep looking for it and get photos of it!

[Deleted User]

A classic Jopson v Homeguard matter. It's a Circuit Judge decision (an appeal decision) which is helpful. The template defence refers to it. Take a copy to any hearing - para 21 is the one you need to refer to.

In short: You weren't parked, you left your vehicle temporarily to ask someone to move their car. Thus you were waiting and exercising your right to pass and re-pass over the land you don't own (i.e. the roadway) to access the land you you do own/rent (your parking bay). This was a temporary state of affairs. As, indeed, proved to be the case, when the car moved.

Even if you did need to park your car elsewhere, the parking company is unlikely to succeed by suggesting it was impermissible/unreasonable to quickly ask if the neighbours were in your spot, before you drove a mile down the road.