UK CPM / Glad overstay Claim Form

LewiiiD

The Deep - thanks for posting that.
C-M pointed me in that direction and I!!!8217;ve included the full transcript of that debate alongside my WS with the bits all highlighted. It!!!8217;s a fairly damming debate and makes interesting reading / watching

LewiiiD

Evening everyone,

As the court case looms I have been working on my SA and Cost Schedule. The later I will send across later this evening all being well.

Please can someone have a once over my SA below. Any pointers or suggestions would be again greatly appreciated.

[FONT=&quot]SKELETON ARGUMENT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I am XXXXX XXXXX, the Defendant in this matter and litigant in person.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I deny any liability in this claim, and any debt is denied in its entirety.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]As an unrepresented, inexperienced litigant-in-person, I respectfully ask that I may be permitted to amend and/or supplement this interim skeleton argument as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Preliminary Matters[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant respectfully requests that the court considers the multiple breaches of conduct that the Claimant has committed ahead of hearing the Defendant’s interim defence. The Defendant respectfully asks the judge to consider striking this matter out of court based upon the following.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1)(Exhibit 1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A)(Exhibit 2). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's (Independent Parking Committee) Code of Practice B1.1 (Exhibit 3) which says[/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]ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The particulars of claim as provided in the Claim Form do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5(Exhibit 4) as there is nothing that specifies how the alleged terms were breached. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a)(Exhibit 5). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]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(s)” with no further description or explanation; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]‘The driver of the vehicle registration [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
XXXX XXX (the ‘Vehicle’) incurred the parking
charge(s) on 09/02/2017 for breaching the
terms of parking on the land at Pembroke Park[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Commonwealth Drive, Crawley, West Sussex.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]RH10 1AW.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
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 £6.32 pursuant to s69 of the
County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing
to Judgement at £0.04 per day’

Practice Direction 3A (Exhibit 6) 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”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Based upon the above Particulars of Claim, the Defendant feels there are indeed a) no facts indicating what this claim is about (apart from a vague reference to parking on land and breaching terms – terms that have not been agreed to by the Defendant at any point) b) due to the lack of facts indicating what the claim is about, this makes no sense and c) there is no disclosed legal recognisable claim against the defendant as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 (Exhibit 3)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iv) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There are several examples of other, relevant private parking charge claims bought by Gladstones being struck out – on the 20th September 2016 District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court struck the claim out without a hearing due to their “robo-claim” particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR 16.4 (Exhibit 5) and “providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law”. (Exhibit 7).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]v) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]On 19th August 2016 District Judge 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 (Exhibit 5) and PD 16 Paragraphs 7.3-7.5 (Exhibit 4). He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars, which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim would be struck out. (Exhibit 8).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vi) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court) the Judge struck out the claim by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim (Exhibit 9)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant feels that the Claimant is using the small claims track as a form of automated, aggressive debt collection and respectfully suggests this is not something that the Courts should be seen to support.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant strongly feels that due to the multiple breaches of court protocol present that there is a strong argument that this case should be dismissed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Lawful right of Claimant to operate parking scheme and bring alleged debt to court[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant has significant doubt as to whether the Claimant has any lawful right to bring this claim before the court. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement. The Claimant 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[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 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 have no right to bring action regarding this claim.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant asks that if the Claimant is to produce any contract, they also produce adequate proof that the contract is with the landowner (as opposed to management agent or any other person claiming to represent the landowner) – land registry document would suffice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If they are unable to provide proof that they have sufficient interest in the land and a lawful, legally binding contract (with the land owner) to both provide parking services and to take legal action to reclaim alleged debts, the Claimant has no lawful, legal right to bring this case before the court and the Defendant respectfully asks the case is found against the Claimant.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Signage not fit for purpose[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant avers that the Claimant’s signs were not fit for purpose;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There was no entrance signage (Exhibit 10). The Claimant’s Trade Association’s – The Independent Parking Committee (“IPC”) – Code Of Practice states entrance signage should “a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered)”. (Exhibit 23) As there is no entrance signage, the Claimant’s signs have failed on a), b) and c). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The car was parked at night, the signs are not clearly visible as they are poorly lit (Exhibit 11) making it impossible for any person to read the sign at night from a position within the car park. The IPC Code of Practice states “If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge”. (Exhibit 24). As the signs are not illuminated, the signage fails. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant’s signs display the Approved Operator Scheme (“AOS”) logo of the British Parking Association (“BPA”) (Exhibit 12) however it was found at a later date that the Claimant left the BPA AOS in September 2015 (Exhibit 13). The BPA doesn’t list UK CPM as an approved operator either (Exhibit 14). There is also no reference on the signage to the Claimant’s membership to the IPC which upon further research it was found the Claimant to be a member of (Exhibit 15) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iv) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The IPC code of practice states “Where the basis of your parking charges is based in law in the contract which will be usually be by way of the driver 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.” And “Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code.”(Exhibit 25) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]v) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]As the Claimant’s signage does not conform with the IPC’s code of practice the defendant therefore argues that this alleged charge cannot be enforced and the alleged charge is not valid.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Fradulent Claim of BPA AOS status[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant investigated the poorly lit, inappropriate signage on display in the residential site once the Parking Charge notice from the Claimant was received.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Upon investigation, the signage clearly displays the British Parking Association (“BPA”) Approved Operator Scheme (“AOS”) roundel logo in the bottom right of the sign (Exhibit 12).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Upon investigation of the BPA’s website – the Claimant is not listed as an approved operator (Exhibit 14). Based upon the fact the Claimant is claiming AOS status with a recognised Trade Organisation but clearly isn’t, the Defendant felt that this amounts to fraudulent representation and that the Claimant is operating a “cowboy outfit”. It was at this point that the Defendant decided not to engage with the Claimant any further based upon suspicions over the Claimant’s behaviour (combined with the intimidation tactics as seen in the point above) and therefore wrote to the Claimant in an attempt to end all further dialogue. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iv) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant contacted the BPA directly to request further information regarding the Claimant. The Claimant left the BPA’s AOS in September 2015 (Exhibit 13). This alleged offence occurred in February 2017 – a significant amount of time after UK CPM left the BPA. A three-month grace period was given to remove the BPA logo from their signage, which clearly hasn’t been done (Exhibit 12).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]v) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant feels that clearly the Claimant had sufficient time (The Claimant’s registered offices are in Brighton, approximately 30 minutes drive from Pembroke Park) to change these signs – and feels that the fraudulent representation of BPA AOS membership is another example of the immoral conduct of the Claimant. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vi) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The BPA’s Code of Practice states “Members of the BPA are encouraged to display the BPA and AOS logos on all sites and in all literature. This will help the public to identify the legitimacy of all licensed contractors, and show that the site is run properly”. Conversely, displaying the BPA AOS logo when the Claimant has no right to undermined the Defendant’s belief that the Claimant is a legitimate, licensed contractor and that the site is run properly. (Exhibit 16).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Unrecoverable Sums[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the alleged parking charge.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 legal representative’s costs – it is believed that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) are templates (there is a remarkable amount of strikingly similar PoCs seen in prior cases and struck out for the poor quality of PoCs as discussed in preliminary matters) – so it is simply not credible that £50 “legal representative’s” (or even admin) costs were incurred.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant has reasonable doubt that the Claimant has incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £160 debt.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Notwithstanding the Defendant’s belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.[/FONT]

LewiiiD

[FONT=&quot]Incestuous Nature of Gladstones, International Parking Community and the Independent Appeals Service[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant believes that there is an incestuous relationship between Gladstones Solicitors, the International Parking Community (“IPC”) and the Independent Appeals Service (“IAS”) and that they cannot function without clear conflict of interest, and therefore are not fit for purpose or fit to bring this case before the court.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant researched the matter further online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the IPC. (Exhibit 15)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]IPC is a trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd (UTI) – company number 08248531. (Exhibit 17)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The IAS is a trading style of UTI - company number 08248531. (Exhibit 17)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iv) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Until the 28th May 2017 UTI’s (and therefore IPC’s) directors were a Mr. John Davies and a Mr. William Hurley. (Exhibit 17) (The alleged debt was 08/01/2017.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]v) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Until the 28th May 2017 Gladstones directors were a Mr. John Davies and a Mr. William Hurley (Exhibit 17) . (The alleged debt was 09/02/2017.) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vi) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mr. John Davies resigned as director of UTI on 28th May 2017.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Mr. William Hurley resigned as director of Gladstones on 28th May 2017.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]viii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Up until the 28th May 2017 there was a clear conflict of interest whereby Gladstones and the IPC (and therefore the IAS) had the same two directors. These directors will therefore be financially motivated to ensure that alleged debts to IPC members were not overturned by the IAS and were represented by Gladstones solicitors in court.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ix) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The alleged debt occurred on 9th February 2017 – prior to the change in directorship at both Gladstones and UTI, so the defendant argues that the prior directorship of these companies must be acknowledged.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]x) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant also states that there is an argument that the directorship changes upon 28th May 2017 are purely an attempt to reduce accusations of conflict of interest, as opposed to reflecting genuine changes in roles/ involvements at certain companies by certain persons.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]xi) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant feels that there is clearly an incestuous relationship between the governing body (IPC), the independent appeals service (IAS) and the solicitors representing the Claimant (Gladstones) which is unlikely not to have significant conflict of interest.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]xii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant’s research has led the Defendant to believe that these two persons, Mr. John Davies and Mr. William Hurley, are financially incentivised for all disputes – regardless of chances of success – to end up in the small claims court. Each case is likely to result in solicitor’s fees accumulated by Gladstones. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]xiii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant therefore sees a clear conflict of interest regarding the IAS – the two directors (at the time of the alleged debt) of the IAS would find themselves at financial disadvantage if the IAS were to overturn alleged parking charges.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]xiv) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant’s research appears to have found information that the “success” rate in appealing an alleged parking charge with the IAS is 30% lower than that of the British Parking Association’s independent appeals service.(Exhibit 18), which seemingly would support point xiii. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]xv) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Solicitors Regulation Authority’s (“SRA”) Code of Practice (Exhibit 19) contains 10 mandatory principles – The Defendant avers that this conflict of interest clearly flouts principles 2. “Act with Integrity” and 3. “Not allow your independence to be compromised”. The Defendant argues that Gladstones are not independent from the IPC (by nature of directorship – when the alleged debt was alleged to have occurred), who the Claimant is a member of.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]xvi) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The SRA go on to say that a solicitor “can never act” where there is “a conflict, or significant risk of conflict between you and your client”. The Defendant avers that there is significant risk of conflict in this case, for the aforementioned reasons and therefore believes that Gladstones should not act in this case.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]xvii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The conflict of interest is apparent under O(3.2)(A), O(3.2)(B), O(3.2)(D) (Exhibit 20).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Attempted Intimidation[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant strongly believes that the Claimant has attempted to intimidate the inexperienced litigant-in-person into paying the alleged debt.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has sent multiple threatening and misleading demands, which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is allegedly owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (This suggested to the inexperienced Defendant that this recovery agent would be calling bailiffs if the debt wasn’t paid) (Exhibit 4, 7 & 8 from WS Evidence).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Throughout the communication with the Defendant, the Claimant makes repeated references to Beavis V Parking Eye UKSC67 (2015) (Exhibit 5, from WS Evidence) – although at first not referencing this by name of by case number (Exhibit 9 from WS Evidence). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant feels the Claimant may have omitted the name and case number to discourage the Defendant from reading the referenced case.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iv) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Regardless of the Defendant’s feelings on this matter – it has been found that Beavis V Parking Eye is not applicable to residential parking as seen in Jopson v Homeguard B9GF0A9E (2016)(Exhibit 6, from WS Evidence) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]v) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Additionally, the Defendant would also 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 Parking Eye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vi) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant feels that the Claimant, as experienced parking operator, and the Claimant’s solicitors must be fully aware that Beavis v Parking Eye is not applicable to residential parking. Therefore, the Defendant believes this has been included in the hope that inexperienced Defendant’s will feel un-due pressure to pay alleged debts to the Claimant. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has corporate membership to the British Parking Association (“BPA”). The BPA’s Code of Practice states “The courts do not look favourably upon operators who try to demand money within short timescales and by using threats, and will award costs against them”(Exhibit 21). The Defendant feels the inclusion of the statement “A Court Judgement against you could seriously affect your future creditworthiness and employability and could lead to enforcement proceedings to recover the judgment debt” in a letter received from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (dated 05/05/2017) is a clear threat. The statement “…as any County Court Judgement or Decree can have a serious effect on a person’s credit rating” in a letter from Gladstones dated 05/06/2017. This is furthered with “The law is now clear” within the same letter (despite this referencing a Supreme Court Case (Beavis V Parking Eye) which was found to be inapplicable to residential parking). [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]viii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) state that “you do not take unfair advantage of those you deal with and that you act in a manner which promotes the proper operation of the legal system” – going on to say in O(11.1) “you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity”. (Exhibit 22 O(11.1))This is furthered in IB (11.7) where it is stated the “following way(s) may tend to show that you have no achieved these outcomes and therefore not complied with the principles”; IB(11.7) taking unfair advantage of an opposing party’s lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a lawyer. (Exhibit 22 IB(11.7)) The Defendant avers that this is a clear case of Gladstones attempting to take unfair advantage of an opposing party’s lack of legal knowledge.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant sees this as a blatant attempt for an experienced, serial litigant to intimidate the inexperienced Defendant into paying the alleged debt despite the Defendant having no legal, lawful or moral requirement to do so. The Solicitors Regulation Authority Code Of Conduct contains 10 mandatory principles for all Solicitors to abide by – the Defendant feels that Gladstones flout principle 2. “Act with integrity” and 6 “behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services”(Exhibit 19).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Claimant’s Prior History of “Enforcement”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Upon researching this matter further, the Defendant has found multiple occasions of parking mis-management and vexatious behaviour by the Claimant, in blatant displays of attempting to maximise revenue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]i) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]One such event is at Coxeter House – a retail site in Abingdon, with a number of businesses and approximately 40 car parking spaces. Coxeters Ltd sought assistance in managing the parking spaces to ensure only genuine customers of those business used the spaces.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Coxeters Ltd decided to use the Claimant for this role.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In just 7 months, 1500 incorrect charges were issued – approximately 214 incorrect tickets issued per month in a car park of just 40 spaces.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]iv) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Coxeters Ltd decided that the Claimant were no longer to manage the car park – however the Claimant then became unresponsive when asked to cease activities. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]v) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Interestingly enough – despite Mr. Coxeter stating “It put people off wanting to come back – the gym was beginning to lose customers. We said we wanted the tickets cancelling and UKCPM refused. As we are the landowners, they were [supposed to be] acting on our behalf. I can’t express the time and sleepless nights we spent trying to sort this out.” In the Oxford mail (Exhibit 26) [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vi) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has a very different testimonial available from Mr. Coxeter on their website (Exhibit 27) “I would highly recommend CPM UK (UKCPM) to anyone who needs a bespoke parking solution”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]vii) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Defendant contacted Mr. Coxeter. Mr. Coxeter was surprised to find this testimonial on UKCPM’s website considering the ongoing disagreement. Mr Coxeter reports giving the testimonial as “a gesture of goodwill” before UKCPM had even begun to “manage” his car park. Since this time, Mr Coxeter has written to the Claimant asking for this to be removed from their website. As of 16/02/2018, UKCPM were still displaying this despite permission being removed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant includes this as an example of the Claimant’s immoral and dishonest behaviour, and as an example of how revenue generation seems to be of more importance than providing a genuine parking management service. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Summary[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant strongly denies any liability for any alleged debt suggest by the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Claimant is an experienced, serial litigant who has made multiple errors as part of their Claim, especially in regard to the Particulars of Claim, which has left the inexperienced litigant-in-person at a significant disadvantage when defending this alleged debt. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Claimant has behaved unreasonably by bringing this claim to court, and by bringing the claim in the manner they have done so. This Defendant believes that the Claimant is an immoral, “cowboy” outfit with multiple past history of mis-management, fraudulent representation and putting financial gain above all else and are not fit and proper to a) run a business b) demand any alleged debt from any person.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant has any lawful, legal right to operate on this land, and does not have the lawful, legal right to use legal means to collect any alleged debts.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Defendant has not entered into any agreement at any point with the Claimant, and therefore cannot be found in breach of any alleged contract. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Additionally, the Claimant’s signage is inefficient and fails to communicate sufficiently. At the site in question there are no entrance signs, poor night-time lighting, and the signage includes a trade association that they are no longer members off. Overall it has failed to communicate effectively and professionally with the Defendant throughout. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Argument, dated 16/02/2018 are true. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Signed:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Dated:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Defendant


Final editing needs to be completed obviously

Thanks
[/FONT]

beamerguy

LewiiiD

You really have done your homework, well done

You may also like to adapt this to a letter and send
it to Sir Greg Knight who started the bill

either by phone or e-mail, on 0845 0900 203 or at sothcottt@parliament.uk If e-mailing, please ensure you include your full residential address. It may be possible to deal with your enquiry or problem in this way, without you having to travel.

And Stephen Doughty who said this in the House.....
"Gladstones Solicitors of Knutsford is involved in many such cases—to be clear, I am talking about the firm in Knutsford; there are other firms of solicitors that use the same name—as is BW Legal. I have been involved in a lengthy case concerning a constituent. This week, I raised concerns about such firms with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and I am hopeful that it will take a close look at the matter and consider whether the firms are complying with the regulatory environment for solicitors, and with best practice."

EMAIL: stephen.doughty.mp@parliament.uk

Gladstones and their dodgy dealers must be terminated

Coupon-mad

That is very long for a skeleton argument.

The idea of a SA is to provide you and the Judge with a summary of your defence points and evidence in bullet points or headings. One sheet, I would say, not a repeat of your defence, no need.

You can say 'I rely on my defence and witness statement, and accompanying evidence which do not bear repeating here' then just summarise, bullet points, like a short 'crib sheet' for you at the hearing.

If the Judge is not with you on one point as you make it, the SA helps you move to the next.

LewiiiD

beamerguy - Thanks for your kind words. I'll try and adapt tomorrow and get something sent of via email. You think it is worth mentioning the court date etc and if they can apply some pressure.....

Coupon-mad - Fully understand your point. Think I got a little carried away. Was slightly worried that I hadn't included some of the information in my defense / WS so was hoping to add some extra points in SA. You think that would be useless now??

Coupon-mad

Well you can introduce points as you speak, that flow from your defence/WS, or in order to tear apart their WS (and the person you are up against is likely to be a hired rep, not the person who wrote it).

So you can note things you wish to 'ask the witness about' and point out discrepancies in their evidence, knowing full well that the ''witness'' has not only never been in the car park, but also will not be there to answer for their words & evidence, and the Judge won't like that! Build on that position.

Go for it in terms of exposing their lies and misleading photos, etc. But no need to repeat your defence and that draft document you've just posted is so long that it will not help you.

You will be nervous and you will want a crib sheet, as the Judge might well say at the start, ''Well Mr LewiiiD, can we hear from you first, what are your main points of defence?''

That's your SA, nice and concise, to read and calm your nerves and keep you focussed.

LewiiiD

Okay, I think I understand where you are coming from? Would I need to send that Crib sheet/ SA to the courts and claimant?

Sounds like I would have that for myself and use my points to expose Gladstones on their failures......?

Ill get on with condensing that SA and creating a Crib sheet this week.

I've had a go at building the cost schedule? Do you think this is acceptable?





Time spent on documents


Reading:

1. Statement of Claim form: 30 minutes: 0.5 hour
2. C's Directions Questionnaire: 30 minutes: 0.5 hour
3. Court order (allocation and timetable): 30 minutes: 0.5 hour
4. IPC Code of Practice: 3 hours
5. BPA Code of Practice: 3 hours
6. Letters from the Claimant: 30 minutes: 0.5 hour
7. Letters from Claimant’s solicitors, Gladstone solicitors: 30 minutes: 0.5 hour
8. Letters from Claimant’s debit recovery agent: 30 minutes: 0.5 hour
9. Schedule 4 of Protection of Freedom Act 2012: 3 hours
10. Contract - with particular reference to unfair contract terms: 3 hours
11. Tort – In relation to trespass: 3 hours
12. Occupiers Liability – both in statute and tort: 3 hours
13. Data Protection: 3 hours
14. Consumer Protection: 3 hours
15. Civil Procedure Rules Part 27: 4 hours
16. Practice Direction 27: 4 hours
17. Civil Procedure Rules Part 31: 4 hours
18. Varies Court cases listed in documents: 8 hours

Total: 47 hours



Drafting:

1. Acknowledgment of Service Form: 30 minutes. 1 hour
2. Statement of Defence: 8.5 hours
3. Directions Questionnaire: 45 minutes. 0.75 hour
4. Witness Statement. 9 hours
5. Skeleton Argument: 8 hours
6. Cost Schedule: 2 hours
5. Other work done on documents like Printing, Scanning & organising: 4 hours

Total: 33.25 hours


Other:

1. 6 calls to court 6x15 minutes : 1.5 hour
2. Time spent to post document to Claimant’s Solicitor, Gladstones Solicitors: 2 hours
3. Time spent to post Statement of defence, Witness Statement & Skeleton Argument to court: 2 hours
4. Site visit to take photographs, Videos and collect evidence: 1.5 hour

Total: 7 hours


Documents:


1. Printing of Defence (estimated) = £25
2. Printing of Witness Statement (estimated): £75
3. Printing of Skeleton Argument (estimated): £40
4. Time spent to post Documents to court & Claimant: 1.25 hour x £19: £23.75
5. Time spent to write this letter / application, 5 hours x £19: £95
6. Loss of earning to attend court hearing at Horsham: £95
7. Car park to attend court hearing in Horsham (estimated) = £5
8. Mileage from Sevenoaks to Horsham and back: 82 miles @ 0.25: £20.5
9. Postage: a. Post Documents to court: £22.80, b. Post Documents Gladstones Solicitors: £18.22



Total hours costs, from the above: 87.25 hours at £19 per hour = £1657.75
Total Expenditure from above: £397.47
Total Costs: £2055.22

Coupon-mad

Would I need to send that Crib sheet/ SA to the courts and claimant?

Yes, why not email it to the other side with your costs schedule (hand deliver it to the Court, or post it in good time, clearly marked with the claim number and what it is/who it's from, and the date of the hearing it relates to).

I've had a go at building the cost schedule? Do you think this is acceptable?

Love it. Enormous costs, but maybe get it down to under two grand(!) by removing one of these, they can't have both needed reading:

4. IPC Code of Practice: 3 hours
5. BPA Code of Practice: 3 hours

I would not expect you to get those costs but you need to start high, like sassi did to get £1500!!

LewiiiD

Yes, why not email it to the other side with your costs schedule (hand deliver it to the Court, or post it in good time, clearly marked with the claim number and what it is/who it's from, and the date of the hearing it relates to).

Okay. Sounds like I need to get this sorted asap. Don't suppose you have Gladstones email to hand?

Love it. Enormous costs, but maybe get it down to under two grand(!) by removing one of these, they can't have both needed reading

Taken on board. Although I did actually have to look at IPC and BPA as they have both logo's on different signage but I shall amend.

Sassi was the person I took inspiration from with the costings. If I get anywhere near as good result as her I'll be very happy......