Another Gladstone court case

Coupon-mad

You need to edit post #9 quickly. You are saying too much here on the forum, about who was driving.

Your defence is written as keeper, so stay that way here, unless you accidentally blabbed about that when including the ticket photo. Hope you didn't, but you are saying too much here!

But you need to be VERY clear that you have never been told what exactly you are defending/what the alleged 'overstay' or underpayment even was. This causes detriment to a defendant who wishes to use the BPA Code of Practice about 'Grace Periods' but hasn't even been told the number of minutes alleged, or any facts relating to the allegation.

stetheo

Thanks!

No I just stated a valid ticket was displayed for the date indicated on the court proceedings.

Ok I will amend the WS accordingly now. Am I ok to add that in as its own point right at the beginning as essentially it's the most important point for building the rest of my defence without specifics

I am also going to cut it down, as when I read back through it now it is very wordy and some points are very similar

Coupon-mad

Am I ok to add that in as its own point right at the beginning as essentially it's the most important point for building the rest of my defence without specifics

Yes I would do that, I agree. Then remove the repetition and some of the generic stuff.

KeithP

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You need to edit post #9 quickly. You are saying too much here on the forum, about who was driving.

And C-M, having quoted post#9, you need to edit post#10.

stetheo

Thanks for the help and TIA!

I've added in a very concise first couple of points and re-ordered the WS.

I have cut a considerable amount out, is that enough or should I cut it down further?

In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

1. The defendant has received no information from the Claimant stating facts around exactly what the alleged 'overstay' or underpayment was.

2. A ticket was paid for a displayed on the date of the alleged overstay or underpayment (Exhibit A – photo of pay and display ticket).

3. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol, as the claimant has not provided any Particulars of Claim or initial information containing the facts to the defendant, so the defendant has no basis to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract that it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

4. 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 in being handled by Gladstones who are a firm of solicitors.

5. As Gladstones 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.

6. The defendant wrote to the claimant on 05/05/2017 (exhibit B – letter asking for details).

The claimant did not respond.

7. The claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contravention ever occurred. Despite a request for more detailed evidence. There has been no evidence provided at any point to prove that the defendant had exceeded the maximum allocated or pre-paid time.

8. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this is a shared vehicle it is impossible to recall who might have been driving therefore puts ES Parking to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves. (Exhibit B – insurance doc proving multiple people)

9. I rely upon the words of barrister and parking expert Lead Adjudicator for PATAS and
POPLA, Henry Michael Greenslade, where he clarified in the POPLA Annual Report
2015 in a heading: 'Understanding Keeper Liability' (of which I have included a copy in
my document bundle) that a private parking operator must never presume that a
keeper is the driver. (Exhibit C – Popla report)

10. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist because it is barely
legible, making it difficult to read. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the
Independent Parking Committee (of which ES is a member), clearly states that “Text
should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having
regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.” As can be seen from
the attached photographic evidence (Exhibit D) this is not the case.


11. The warning signs above the ticket machine are so high up that only a person of above average height would be able to read and they also face away from the ticket machine so cannot clearly be seen. (Exhibit E – photograph of machine and signage)


12. 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.

13. 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.’

14. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers 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:

7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.

15. The claimant described the charge of £50 as ‘legal fees’ not ‘contractual costs’ CPR
.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court

16. 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.

17. 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.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.



Signed


Dated

stetheo

Hi all,

Just another quick questions, I received the WS from Gladstones and a lot was standard stuff.

However they have provided me with they contract to operate on the land, and in turn, 'ticket' offending vehicles. However the agreement they have sent through was out of date when they issued my ticket.

Obviously only seeing this in their WS I wasn't able to include this in my defence, although I did reference requesting this information from them months ago.

Can I include any reference to this in my skeleton argument? I've been searching the forum but cannot seem to find anything around this ( I may not be searching the correct terms).

Thanks in advance

Redx

if you asked for it months ago and its only just been provided , you can mention it in the witness statement by starting it with mentioning that in the defence the claimant was asked to provide all paperwork and now that you have it you note that the contract had expired on the date in question

you can even upload it as part of the evidence at the same time , seeing as you are at WS and evidence stage

stetheo

Thanks for your reply, I'm actually past the WS stage. I received the WS from Gladstones on the very last day it was able to be submitted.

Due in court tomorrow

Redx

so tell the judge that and state you have not been given time to deal with the late paperwork and that they should take note seeing as its the evidence from the claimant that proves your point

Coupon-mad

Have you submitted your costs schedule to court and Gladstones by email?