SIP - Gladstones - County Court PCN Claim

mattgrundy87

Good evening you great people,

(the background) I received a wonderful PCN back on the 13th February 2017 from SIP. A ticket was purchased on this day at Cable Street Manchester however the ticket fell from the dashboard into the footwell,

I responded to SIP directly via letter to advise that I would not be paying the excessive fine and they responded to say upon giving careful consideration of the circumstances they have found no sufficient grounds to cancel the charge, they love a bit of generic letter sending,

I tried to respond once more and advise that I will not be paying the amount presented as a ticket was rightfully purchased, surprise surprise this once again received a generic response,

I then received a further letter from the nice guys over at Gladstones dated 10th July 2017 stating to pay a charge amount of £160 (letter before claim) - this has now been followed by a County Court claim issued to me and dated the 9th August 2017 for £240.19 in total,

I responded to the County Court claim within due time and selected to defend the charge,

(the help required) I am now looking for advice on how to proceed and create my draft defence - any help would be much appreciated. Is there a template guide available that I can tailor to suite this case?


UPDATED WITH DRAFT DEFENCE:


1. It is admitted that the defendant, NAME residing at ADDRESS, is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. The vehicle was regularly parked within Cable Street car park between the dates of September 2016 through July 2017 without prior issue. The 3 hour charge of £4.50 (recently increased to £5.20) has been paid on every such occasion.

3. A ticket was purchased at Cable Street, Manchester on the 13th February 2017 for the above-mentioned charge of £4.50. A copy of the ticket has been duly attached to this letter as reference. This referenced ticket had fallen from the dashboard of vehicle REG

4. I am yet to receive or have sight of any documents provided to the court in support of the application. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. It merely provides a date, amount and due date.

5. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

6. There have been no documents served with Gladstones pre-court letter but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has failed to fulfil the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA. This includes fully-compliant documents being served, adequate notice of the terms and 'parking charge' in large prominent lettering and proof of the existence of a 'relevant contract' and a 'relevant obligation' (as defined in the Act). The Defendant denies that any such requirements were met.

7. I note the absence of;
a. photographic evidence
b. details as to the described sum of 'parking charges’ and ‘indemnity costs’

8. No evidence has been supplied by the claimant as to who was driving the vehicle at the time the alleged charges were incurred. I have also not seen any photographs and on subsequent investigation of the car park there is no indication that cctv/photographs are being taken. As per 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. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right. (is this wise to include?)

9. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. I also question the claimant’s authority to bring this claim (if any debt exists, which is denied), as they are not the landowner.

10. It is not believed that the claimant has incurred additional costs. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.

11. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of similar generic claims put before the court in the absence of enquiries as to whether there is a valid cause of action. I understand from my research that HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims which appear to be against the public interest, a waste of court time and 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.

12. The Defendant believes the terms 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. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

13. 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.

14. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

15. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

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

Redx

there are other SIP GLADSTONE cases further along than yours , so yes there are EXAMPLES of court defences you can adapt

plus GLADSTONES get involved with dozens of other parking companies so there are plenty of NON-SIP ones too

only look at the 2017 ones though , nothing older

see post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread to start you off

then use the forum drop down SEARCH BOX to find other examples to crib from

mattgrundy87

thanks for the support Redx, I have updated the initial post with a draft defence for my case.

If anyone could pick this apart and advise on what to potentially add / change / improve that would be greatly appreciated

mattgrundy87

hey sorry to bump this but is anyone able to offer advice on my initial post re the draft defence. its a rough start and likely needs additions, any help would be welcomed. I go on holiday this Friday (1/9/17) and won't be back until the 13/9/17, looking to hopefully get this defence statement to a good place in order to send off prior to jetting off and away

Coupon-mad

You need to email it to the CCBC using the ccbcaq email address (Google it or find it on other threads).

Don't say this, it reads as an admission! How do you know SIP didn't shake the car? Or when it fell? As far as you are concerned, you did display the ticket in the required manner:

This referenced ticket had fallen from the dashboard

You could instead have this:

The vehicle was properly parked with a pay and display ticket (PDT) when parked. The Defendant has no knowledge of why the PDT was later moved, or how, at the point when the SIP employee was leaning across the car to take photographs at careful angles, to suggest non-display. The Defendant does not know at what point the displayed PDT was caused to slip out of view, if it did, and who or what caused this, but the fact is that the terms were complied with, at the vital point of actually parking and leaving the car.

Even if the Claimant is able to show that no PDT was visible from the careful angles at which their photographs were taken, this does not prove on the balance of probabilities that it was not displayed when the Defendant parked, and not visible at all through the windscreen. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the PDT was not visible, and the Defendant will file a witness statement to confirm that it was properly displayed, should the claim continue to trial.

And I prefer the style demonstrated by Johnersh, with headings, as used here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73051710#Comment_73051710

and as alternative version, here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73052391#Comment_73052391

Use the start and end of those, and lots of the headings & points can be same in yours. IMHO, both of those read better than the older version you based your draft on.

Cable Street Manchester

Hope your local Court is Manchester - their Judges do get the PPC scam - it's a ''good'' Court!