SIP Gladstones vs ticket fallen off Dashboard

billy87

I paid for and parked in a SIP car park off Wilmslow Road, Manchester. There was a barrier to get in and I paid for a valid ticket.
It must have fallen off as when I got back to the car I found the PCN on my windscreen and the ticket I paid for on the floor. I sent SIP and Gladstones explanations but they rejected my explanations and still sent me a Small Claims letter. I have submitted an ASOL and now on MCOL I have drafted and edited a defence using something written by Coupon-Mad (The Legend).

Here it is:

[FONT=&quot]1. I am the Defendant, xxxxxxx , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at xxxxxxx and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary matters:

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.

5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. The PCN was issued on land that restricts access to the car park with a motorised barrier which was manned by an attendant at the time I arrived to park my car. For the barrier to go up, an attendant took my payment, issued it to me and then pressed the button for it to move up and allow access to my vehicle.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. The attendant issued me with a valid parking ticket which allowed me to stay until 00:18.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. A PCN was issued at 22.47. By the time I returned to my vehicle, which was well before 00:18 the barrier was permanently in the up position and was allowing all vehicles to access the car park.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. The ticket I had been issued by the SIP attendant, did not have any sticky back to it. As a result I was unable to secure it to the dashboard or window. Therefore I displayed it as well as can be reasonable expected near the windscreen.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. I returned to the car to find the ticket in the foot well and a PCN on my windscreen. The ticket must have been blown off by the wind as a result of opening/closing the door. It is admitted that a ticket should be displayed but also submitted that the claimant must have some responsibility in assisting a paying customer display a ticket by providing a ticket which can be displayed and does not blow away easily by the wind. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. The claimant can clearly do this when displaying a PCN to the outside of the windscreen so should be able to provide a paying customer with an equally wind proof ticket to display on the inside.

12. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

13. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

14. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

15. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

16. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

17. I refer to case Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012) in which it was agreed that a private parking firm was responsible for mitigating any loss. SIP had a chance to end this action when I wrote to them explaining I had paid for a valid ticket to park legally on land they controlled. Gladstones equally had this opportunity when I also responded to their Last Letter before Action explaining the circumstances.

18. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

19. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

20. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can anyone suggest any changes or tell me if I'm okay to submitt it.

I don't have many days before my ASOL period finished.

They issued on 22/09/17...How long have I got?
[/FONT]

claxtome

Have you considered defending yourself as Keeper not as the driver?
(Depends on whether you have let it slip who the driver was in your correspondence so far)
The main advantage of defending as keeper is you can challenge their NTK conforms to POFA 2012 guidelines.

I suggest you look near the end of my 'flipped ticket' thread to get some more arguments about your case. (It is similar to yours but not the same as my ticket was still displayed on the dash but upside down )

They issued on 22/09/17...How long have I got?

Your maximum time to submit a defence is 33 days from the original issue date. If you are posting it you need to take off a couple of days to allowing to be posted. (You can email it but remember it must be signed)

My calculation 22/09/2017 + 33 days is 24/10/2017 (my thoughts - if posting needs to go this Friday, first class recorded, at very latest)

System

My calculation 22/09/2017 + 33 days is 24/10/2017 (my thoughts - if posting needs to go this Friday, first class recorded, at very latest)

Or you can email it. Call MCOL (the number is on the form) and ask for the email address so you can email it in.

@claxtome Good to see you back into the fray after your win.

billy87

Thanks people. I'll let you know how it goes.

The_Deep

Have you read this?


https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/213982109-Fluttering-Ticket-Robodefence