Court papers SIP/ Gladstone “failure to display”

[Deleted User]

Read my defence for own spaces - not because it's relevant to your case (it's not) but for style.

It seems that you have three core points:
1. That the PPC have failed to show they are entitled to bring the claim;
2. That the ticket was displayed (no breach)
3. That in any event payment was made (no loss)

Clearly numbered paragraphs, subheadings for different parts of your argument assist the reader etc etc.

The defence can be short if you are content you can prove that the claimant is in error. Are your smartphone photos saved via Google or some other app that automatically dates/times them?

You should begin by including a bit of background to the parking incident. That will tee up the 2x witness statements that you will serve (I assume "we" means someone else was there).

Since the ticket 'traffic enforcer' or whatever they call themselves rarely gives a statement, you should be in a good position.

Finally you need to challenge their claim to costs strongly. See my example in response to the usual nonsense claim for bolt-on charges.

Coupon-mad

Johnersh's ''own space'' defence is one of the examples linked in post #2 of the NEWBIES sticky thread.

Bucko78

Thank you, I will look at these shortly..

Above it it’s mentioned that I should omit the pre estimate of loss, could you briefly explain why?

I have just been reading the bpa c.o.p and it’s stating that it should be based on the genuine pre estimate of loss that they have suffered; since no loss has occurred why isn’t it a reasonable line to add in?

Cheers guys / girls

[Deleted User]

since no loss has occurred why isn’t it a reasonable line to add in?

Because the supreme court said not in ParkingEye v Beavis

Coupon-mad

It has had no legs since November 2015.

Bucko78

Johnersh wrote: »

Read my defence for own spaces - not because it's relevant to your case (it's not) but for style.

It seems that you have three core points:
1. That the PPC have failed to show they are entitled to bring the claim;
2. That the ticket was displayed (no breach)
3. That in any event payment was made (no loss)

Clearly numbered paragraphs, subheadings for different parts of your argument assist the reader etc etc.

The defence can be short if you are content you can prove that the claimant is in error. Are your smartphone photos saved via Google or some other app that automatically dates/times them?

You should begin by including a bit of background to the parking incident. That will tee up the 2x witness statements that you will serve (I assume "we" means someone else was there).

Since the ticket 'traffic enforcer' or whatever they call themselves rarely gives a statement, you should be in a good position.

Finally you need to challenge their claim to costs strongly. See my example in response to the usual nonsense claim for bolt-on charges.

I’ve had a long read thorough that lot:eek:, well formatted, thanks.;)

The photos are on my old iPhone although I have copies on my new one. The original date stamp can be found in photo properties should I need to prove the legitimacy of them.

The breach they claim is based upon the none sticky ticket not being ‘displayed on the dashboard’..
However, The ticket was present on the area of the clocks ( you know the front of the dashboard):D of the steering column.

Wikipedia describe the dashboard as:-
A dashboard (also called dash, instrument panel (IP), or fascia) is a control panel located directly ahead of a vehicle's driver, displaying instrumentation and controls for the vehicle's operation.

Where will this terminology get me?:D


As far as costs go, is this the area where figures are plucked from thin air where no viable time or effort has constituted any valid uplift?

The term ‘we’ is based on me doing the groundwork to assist in the defendant being successful in court.:D so just one statement...
Like most easygoing people who fall foul of these cowboys, there is a tendency for some to simply pay up to avoid the fright and stress which gets deployed by these muppets when a ticket gets slapped on your windscreen.
Myself on the other hand like to fight it out..if I lose so be it..but I’ll have the satisfaction of making them work for it..

I will make a go of the witness statement and knit together the formation of events, I’ll get it all re written for you good peeps to look at..

Thanks for the help..much appreciated..

[Deleted User]

A dashboard (also called dash, instrument panel (IP), or fascia) is a control panel located directly ahead of a vehicle's driver, displaying instrumentation and controls for the vehicle's operation.

Where will this terminology get me?

SOMETHING LIKE THIS: The Defendant denies that no parking ticket was displayed on the dashboard/fascia areas of his vehicle and denies that the parking ticket purchased and displayed was not visible to parking operatives. The ticket purchased was there to be seen. The Defendant will produce to the Court photographic evidence taken contemporaneously in due course.

Bucko78

Hi all, How does this look now, I’m hoping there’s enough meat on the bone, to satisfy the requirements.

Just to summarise.. this is a fail to display case where a ticket was purchased but declared to be missing by the operator.., could you advise if anything contained within shouldn’t be there.. or if you think I’m missing something pertinent.

Cheers 👍🏼
some items within are a little over my head

Claimant
SIP PARKING / GLADSTONE SOLICITORS

Defendant




DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence based on the short summary provided by the claimant. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
1.1. It raises concerns and an element of doubt that there is vacancy in their claim. The structure and depth to these particulars of claim are information limited, therefore the defendant would suggest that this is another issue of a sporadic ‘robo-claim’ whereby no real grounds or reasonable amount of involvement has even taken place to justify the escalated costs associated with these losses / damages. The Claimants are also renown by HM Courts Service for the sporadic issuing of these commonly known ‘robo-claims’ which as such are not in the public interest.

2. 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.


Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

6. The Defendant is alleged to have breached the terms and conditions by failing to display a valid ticket, these allegations are both untrue and unfounded. I confirm that a valid ticket was purchased and it was displayed in accordance with the directions stated on the ticket.
6.1The Defendant denies all allegations that no parking ticket was displayed on the dashboard/fascia areas of the vehicle; it is also refuted that the parking ticket purchased and displayed on the day in question was not visible to parking operatives. The ticket purchased was there to be seen by anyone willing to pay due diligence to its presence. The Defendant will produce to the Court photographic evidence taken contemporaneously in due course.

6.2.The defendant withheld the right to appeal direct to the claimants organisation based on the facts that the adjudication process was internally biased and flawed and inevitably declined.
It is worth mentioning in my defence that after doing some research, it is common knowledge that Gladstone’s Solicitors, and the IPC are working ‘in house under the same directorship’ .
As an independent PCN adjudication service the decision for the IPC to overturn any such case is counteractive and damaging to their business concerns; that being the beneficiary: Gladstone’s solicitors.
I cast little doubt that my appeal would have even been considered, let alone revoked.

The claimants representative (like in many cases) have been issued a copy of my valid ticket applicable to the alleged breach.
subsequent correspondence has failed to have been acknowledged by the claimant this was sent namely to uphold integrity of both parties and to avoid the inconvenience and burden of being brought through the channels of the legal system.
Photographic evidence of was reciprocated by both the claimant and defendant in order counteract any doubt or malice which was set up and created purposely and damningly by the attendant with the camera.

It is commonly known by the amount of spurious claims being handled that parking attendants /representatives go to extreme lengths to generate easy revenue by concealing and manipulate evidence. A situation occurs where a persons good practice and integrity is condemned, Unfortunately the defendant is coerced and challenged under a pseudo parking breach which could be defined as entrapment.


7. Accordingly it is denied that:

7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.

9. 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.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

Bucko78

Are you all still reading it:D

Grateful for a yay or nay..cheers

Bucko78

Too long..?