UK CPM / Glad overstay Claim Form

LewiiiD

Good morning all, hopefully I've found the right place!

A brief summary of what has gone on:

* No PCN was received on the vehicle in question
* Formal demand letter received from U.K. CPM on 15/03/17. Parking charge details stated an overstay in a visitors space at residential estate. Issued 14/02/17 cost £100. Photos taken of vehicle on 09/02/17 @ 14:24:35 & 17:37:04
* Various DRP letters - 19/04/17 £149, 04/05/17 £149, 19/05/17 £126.65. All had date of offence as the 09/02/17
* Gladstone Solicitors letters - 20/06/17, 26/06/17 £149 reference starting 379
* Letter before claim - Gladstone 17/08/17 - £160
* Claim Form - issued 06/09/17 received 11/0917

The vehicle was parked in a visitors space on a private residential estate in Three Bridges Crawley. No PCN was ever received on the vehicle and first knowledge of ticket was through the formal demand letter.

At no stage have I replied or acknowledged the letters as I was to believe these were scare tactics by Roboclaim type companies. Nor was I of the understanding that there was an overstay limit on visitor spaces at the time.

Subsequently having checked the signage there is a 3 hour limit and not to return for 12 hours. I can send through the photo of the sign at a later time if required. But it's very small lettering and wasn't noticed until after the letters started coming through. The vehicle had a visitor space permit at the time in question and believed this is all that was required to park in the spaces. There are no signs at the immediate entrance and they hadn't been noticed on any previous visits to the estate.

Looking for thoughts and suggestions on this, and whether I have a case? I have read a few threads and the NEwbies forum.

Sounds like my first stop should be submitting the acknowledgment via moneyclaim website? Then make a start on my defence?

Thanks in advance!

Lewis

nosferatu1001

Yes, as the newbies thread, post 2 TELLS you to do, acknowledge.

Then you start on defence. Read ALL of post 2, has links to examples

If your vehicle (never ID the driver!, Edit your first post!) was parked at a vistiors space, did it have permission of a resident? What does the residents Lease / AST / Rental agreement say about the provision of parking?

LewiiiD

nosferatu1001 thanks for replying.

I've acknowledged the court form as suggested. Will start on a defence shortly.

I don't believe I've identified the driver? If so can you point that out.
In regards to parking, The driver was visiting the g.f at her residence, using the visitor parking permit (which was displayed), they hadn't realised the spaces had a time limit.....

Nothing is mentioned in her tenancy agreement regarding the parking situation. She was given one residence pass and another visitor pass when she moved in.

Thanks, Lewis

Coupon-mad

xxx had a visitor space permit at the time in question and believed this is all xxx required to park in the spaces. There are no signs at the immediate entrance and xxx had not noticed any on previous visits to the estate.

Edit the above sentence in your opening post in case the wrong eyes see it...

LewiiiD

Coupon - thanks for pointing that out. Post has been amended accordingly.

LewiiiD

Sample defence - I've included in point 6 about the lease - however currently awaiting the tenancy agreement from the girlfriend. Not sure if there will be anything in there about Parking, worth including or not?

Argument being its a residential site and the vehicle was parked in a visitor bay with permit - made unaware of a 3 hour time limit......
Signage does however have conditions about parking but are very small and look like they've been ammended or updated with stick over signage.

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.



In the County Court
Claim Number: ******************
Between
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED v ************************


DEFENCE STATEMENT

I am XXX, Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action 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. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Commonwealth Drive , Three Bridges, Crawley.

3. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2017.
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

4. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site which communicated any additional punitive parking charge (effectively a private 'fine') in large lettering, in a clear and concise way, on a par with the tariff signs where the fees were advertised in the largest font. By contrast, the 'parking charge' is positively buried in small print, contrary to Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was any agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time. In addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

Rebuttal of Claim

6. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Lease/Tenancy Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. The Defendant avers that there was at the very least, a prior and overriding grant of a licence to park, and indeed believes there was an absolute entitlement to park, deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide residents with the right to park a vehicle on this private land, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays

6.2 The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:

(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.

6.3 Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

8. The Defendant denies that they 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.
a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

9. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.
a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.
c. 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 POF.
The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

10. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £xx to £xx. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. 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 £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with 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.

Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:
11. UK Carpark Management Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has 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 action regarding this claim.
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
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

12. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:
‘The driver of the vehicle registration
XXXX XXX incurred the parking
charge(s) on XX/XX/2017 for breaching the
terms of parking on the land at Commonwealth Drive
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or
is the Keeper of the Vehicle
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160.00 for Parking Charges / Damages and
indemnity costs if applicable, together with
interest of £6.81 pursuantto s69 of the
County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
to Judgement at £0.04 per day’

13. 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.

14. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’

15. 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.

16. 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

17. 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.

18. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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.

19. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

20. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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

KeithP

Oh dear.

The sentence immediately following:

LewiiiD wrote: »

I don't believe I've identified the driver? If so can you point that out.

...should be adjusted to read:

In regards to parking, the driver was visiting his g.f at her residence, using the visitor parking permit (which was displayed), we hadn't realised the spaces had a time limit.....

Take care.


Edited to add: but having read your defence, it appears that that you might be defending as the driver:

6. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Lease/Tenancy Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land.

Points 7. and 8. also give the impression that the defendant might be the driver.

LewiiiD

Keith P - thanks for the reply and heads up re driver of vehicle.

I was unsure about point 6 - not having the tenancy I was reluctant to include so will just remove.
7 and 8 can also be removed.

The basis of the defence was primarily focusing on signage and authority to operate on the land.

You think this be enough going forward? How does the rest of the defence read?

Thanks,

Lewis

KeithP

Leave 7 and 8 in if you like.
for 7, start with "7. The driver did not enter into..."
for 8, start with "8. The Defendant denies that the driver would..."

But you may well be more comfortable in court defending as the driver.

Your choice, but wait for the views of others.

Coupon-mad

Same sort of comments as here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73073545#post73073545

That person used the same template.

LewiiiD

Coupon-mad - thanks again for your help..

I've had a little play around with my Defence, and think Ive finally got something worthwhile.


Once again I appreciate any advice!

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO. __________
BETWEEN :

UK Car Park Management Limited

Claimant
AND

XXXXXXXXX
Defendant

DEFENCE


[FONT=&quot]Introduction[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
3. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant’s case. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
4. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
5. The residential area in question has particularly poor lighting at night when the car was parked. The terms and conditions of parking have no lighting and were unreadable. It was not made clear that there was any restriction regarding Visitor Spaces and how long you could park there for.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

6. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at Pembroke Park, Crawley. The PCN stated the contravention as “Over Stay”.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Purported Basic of Claim[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]7. Further based upon the scant and deficint details contained in the Pariculars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the claimant’s case that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a. There was a contract formed by the defendant and the claimant on 2nd February 2017.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d. That in addition to the Parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]g. Further that the defendant has not paid the alleged debt. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Rebuttal of Claim[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
8. It is denied that:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
a. A contract was formed[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]g. That the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.


9. It is further denied that the Defendant owes any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and vexatious.

10. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

11. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My Defence[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
12. My defence will reply principally upon the following points:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
13. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
14. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]15. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]16. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]17. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]a. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]d. 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[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]18. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a residential car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
19. The Defendant denies that they 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. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council, which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
20. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £xx to £xx. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]b. 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 £xx to £xx. 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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]c. 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
21. 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.

22. 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

23. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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.

24. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
25. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]



This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Signed______________________[/FONT]