Gladstone Court Summons- Defence Help

Normsface

Hi All,


Yesterday I received a court summons by Gladstone Solicitors for a parking charge received back in July.


Background; the car park is a CCTV plate recognised one so no physical ticket was issued. Car Park is managed by HX Car Park Management.


This car park has been free for the past 3 years, I did not see any signage to indicate that this has changed, no barriers etc. I know personally 2 other people who have now been issued with court summons and a quick google took me to a facebook page for the where at least 7 other people (who I have no affiliation with) have had the same summons, all stating inadequate signage, so i'm clearly not alone in this.



I ignored all letters prior as I was under the impression this was what you were to do with private charges (not so sure now!)

I'm planning on submitting a defence but i'm not sure where to start. I have seen the Gladstones Robo Claim templates, would I used this or a generic one that alludes to inadequate signage?


Do I admit to being the driver of the vehicle?


Do I offer supporting documents of the other drivers affected by the inadequate signage (screen grabs)?


If possible i'm looking for a skeleton defence letter and an indication of what needs to be added/removed to suit my personal circumstances.


I hope that all makes sense, I hope you clever folk can help me


S x

beamerguy

The first thing we need to know, if Gladstones have followed
the new claim procedure so be prepared for questions from
the experienced here, there are two experienced lawyers
on here

YES the signs will play a major part in your defence so
pictures taken by you are important

YOU NEVER ADMIT TO BEING THE DRIVER
YOU ARE ONLY THE KEEPER

Redx

lets get some facts straight for starters

there is no "summons" - but you do have an MCOL, a county court claim

there is no CCTV, the PPC will be using ANPR cameras - totally different

if the driver has not been identified , keep it that way in order to use the law called POFA2012 , so your paperwork is from the KEEPER

now please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread , post #2

read the BARGEPOLE link on the walkthrough

do the AOS online

then read a dozen recent GLADRAGS defences and start to draft your own defence

post it on here for critique

then you will get more advice once the above has been done

you are NOT looking for a skeleton defence , there is no such thing

you are drafting a full defence

much later in the process you will be submitting evidence , photographs , witness statements and a skeleton argument etc

for now its do the AOS online and draft a full defence

Normsface

Thank you guys, going to give this a whirl now and post hopefully later today

Normsface

Hi Redx,


Drafted defence, please let me know your thoughts as to whether this acceptable;

• It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
  
  
• In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application.
  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to HX Car Park Management, and no proof has been provided.

• The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Gladstones have also added a ‘legal Representative Cost’ I propose these have not been incurred by the claimant but artificially invented in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
  The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no 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' or contractual 'unpaid fees'.
  Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
  Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.
  
  
• 
  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.
  HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
  I believe the term 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.
  I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
  
  
  In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
  They did not send me a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
  a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
  b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
  c) How the “charge amount” of 125 pounds has been calculated and justified.
  d) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
• 
  
  I suggest 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.
  
  
• 
  The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
• 
  This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
  Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
• 
  It is strongly denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
  
  

• 
  It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, lighting, and light coloured font and background hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
  a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
  b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
  c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
  d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
  e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
• f) Sudden change from being a free car park with no warnings and no obvious, noticeable or clear signage

• I propose that the sudden change at ‘MFA Fantasy Park, The Kursaal Park’ from free parking to a ANPR system with no prior warning, clear signage (nor in the carpark or the Kursaal itself), was a deliberate attempt by HX Car Park Management to mislead drivers and increase cash revenue by issuing excessive and unfair parking charges, aided by Gladstones and their ‘Roboclaims’. I am confident I will be able to provide multiple independent witness statements if required, further supporting this.

• 
  The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
  It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
  As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

• 
  I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
  
  
  Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

I find that almost impossible to read with all the gaps, and the pale italics. Can you re-format it please?

Normsface

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No:
Between

HX CAR MANAGEMENT LIMITED

(Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

DEFENCE STATEMENT

• It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
  
  
• In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application.
  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to HX Car Park Management, and no proof has been provided.

• The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Gladstones have also added a ‘legal Representative Cost’ I propose these have not been incurred by the claimant but artificially invented in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
  The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no 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' or contractual 'unpaid fees'.
  Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.
  Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

• 
  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.
  HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
  I believe the term 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.
  I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
  
  
  In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
  They did not send me a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
  a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
  b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
  c) How the “charge amount” of 125 pounds has been calculated and justified.
  d) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.

• 
  
  I suggest 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.
  
  
• 
  The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
• 
  This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
  Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
• 
  It is strongly denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

• 
  It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, lighting, and light coloured font and background hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
  a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
  b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
  c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
  d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
  e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
• f) Sudden change from being a free car park with no warnings and no obvious, noticeable or clear signage

• I propose that the sudden change at ‘MFA Fantasy Park, The Kursaal Park’ from free parking to a ANPR system with no prior warning, clear signage (nor in the carpark or the Kursaal itself), was a deliberate attempt by HX Car Park Management to mislead drivers and increase cash revenue by issuing excessive and unfair parking charges, aided by Gladstones and their ‘Roboclaims’. I am confident I will be able to provide multiple independent witness statements if required, further supporting this.

• 
  The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
  It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
  As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

• 
  I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
  
  
  Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

- In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor outright refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
They did not send me a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct, neither the version before 1st October, nor the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

As a notorious and seasoned user of the small claims system, the Claimant's Solicitors - who file such baseless, unevidenced claims in their hundreds every week - will know that prior to 1 October 2017, the provisions of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct applied to claims of this nature, and it contained various obligations on the Claimant, with which they were obliged to comply before issuing any claim (paragraphs 3, 6(a) and 6(c)).

I put this Claimant to explain why they have failed to comply with either the new or the old Practice Directions and why Gladstones appear to consider themselves and their clients to be immune from the rules of the court, which bind every other litigant.

The purported 'Letter before Action' can be seen to miss the following information:

a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
c) How the “charge amount” of £125 [STRIKE]pounds[/STRIKE] has been calculated and justified.
d) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
e) Copies of the documents upon which their Client intends to rely, including the purported contract they allege was breached.

Change UTCCRs to CRA here:

c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. [STRIKE]Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.[/STRIKE]

You could add at the end (thanks to LOC123 for much of this wording):

Given that the Claimant is in significant breach of the pre-action Protocol, I ask that the claim is struck out pursuant to CPR Part 3.4. The court may of course make such an order of its own volition, by exercising its inherent case management powers under CPR Part 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1.

If the court does not wish to make an order under Part 1.4(2)(c) it has the power to treat this letter as an application and dispense with the requirement for me to file a formal application - this power is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2)(b). I invite the court to take this step without putting me - a Litigant in Person significantly disadvantaged by a firm of Solicitors - to the time, trouble and cost of a formal application.


And then give each part some headings.

e.g. 'signs creating no contract'

'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 can be fully distinguished' and 'Serious breach of the CPR and Practice Direction by Claimant'

And number each point.

Loadsofchildren123

the last para of the red wording about sanctions needs changing because it was originally drafted as a letter, whereas this is going in your defence. Take out the first sentence of that para.

Coupon-mad

Thanks LOC123, I will edit it.

Normsface

Hi,


Just wanted to double check before I add the part in with the pre court letter. I actually didn't respond to any correspondence or request any information from Gladstones, I believe they may have sent a pre court letter, very generic, but again to be honest I didn't pay much attention (or keep it) as I didn't expect it to get to this stage.


Would this point still be valid?