Gladstones - Directions questionnaire - hx parking management and their misleading

Illiterateplonker

• It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
  
• It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety.
  
  
• 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.
  HMCS 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.
  
• 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 Parking Management, and no proof has been provided.
  
  
• The Defendant has requested copies of all paperwork as per Section 7 of the data protection Act 1998, and despite being received and signed for on the 27/10/2017, no copy documentation has been received by the Defendant which can be seen as a deliberate attempt weaken the Defendant who has no legal experiences case.
  
• 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 submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs 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 the small claims court.
  
  
• It is 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, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
  a) Site/entrance signage – Has been placed within tree branches which would not be visible in the height of Summer when the trees are in full bloom. (Exhibit a) The Defendant was only made aware of these signs when returning to the site in October to take pictures for evidence. The Defendant also notes the sign has not only been placed within the branches of a tree but it is also green and white thus not making it clear to read. The Defendant refers to the Terms and Conditions that are almost unreadable as they are displayed in such small font. Contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, schedule 1 - Signage “Contrast and Illumination, signage - Black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast”.
  
  b) There is no warning on signage that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made to DVLA for the keeper’s details, contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, Schedule 1 - Signage, Other signs, condition 3.
  
  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) The defendant believes the signs have been placed to cause confusion with motorists. BPA Approved Code Operator Scheme Code of Practice 18.3 ‘You must place signs containing the specific parking term throughout the site, so that drivers are given a chance to read thethe time of parking or leaving their vehicle’. The Defendant refers to (Exhibit b) where no signs are visible in a 360 degree turn.
  
  
  11.The Defendant was aware a new machine had been installed in the car park (which is not managed by the claimant) and was not clear which car park the machine related to so brought a ticket and sought clarification.
  The Defendant sought clarification upon immediately entering the soft play of the Claimaints premises. The Defendant was advised by the Claimants employee that the Defendant was not liable to pay any parking tariffs due as the Defendants using the onsite facilities.
  
  
  13.The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
  
  14.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', ''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

Illiterateplonker

Evening All,


I don't suppose somebody could please advise me on my defence.
Unfortunately, I hadn't found this site when I originally received my Court Claim Form and panicked, I stupidly wrote a rather rushed defence and accepted part liability. (STUPID I know) I even offered to pay what I believed was owed (Just under an hours tariff) The only reason I hadn't paid for the full was because an employee advised me I didn't have to as I was using the facilities and that they were free.


My Defence is below...I would be really grateful if somebody could offer me any kind of advice before I submit as I would rather not making any more silly mistakes... Thank you all in advance.

• It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
  
• It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety.
  
• 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 Parking Management, and no proof has been provided.
  
• The Defendant has requested copies of all paperwork as per Section 7 of the data protection Act 1998, and despite being received and signed for on the 27/10/2017, no copy documentation has been received by the Defendant. The Defendant believes this is a deliberate attempt to ensure the Defendant is unable to successfully defend themselves.
  
• 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.
  HMCS 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.
  
• 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 submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs 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 the small claims court.
  
  
• It is 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, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: a)Site/entrance signage – Has been placed within tree branches which would not be visible in the height of Summer when the trees are in full bloom. (Exhibit a) The Defendant was only made aware of these signs when returning to the site in October to take pictures for evidence. The Defendant also notes the sign has not only been placed within the branches of a tree but it is also green and white thus not making it clear to read. The Defendant refers to the Terms and Conditions that are almost unreadable as they are displayed in such small font. Contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, schedule 1 - Signage “Contrast and Illumination, signage - Black text on a white background or white text on a black background will provide a suitable contrast”.
  b) There is no warning on signage that if a charge remains unpaid for a period of 28 days after issue then an application will be made to DVLA for the keeper’s details, contrary to IPC Code of Practice, Part E, Schedule 1 - Signage, Other signs, condition 3.
  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) The defendant believes the signs have been placed to cause confusion with motorists. BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 18.3 ‘You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the sight, so that drivers are given a chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle’. The Defendant refers to (Exhibit b) where no signs are visible in a 360 degree turn
  
• The Defendant was aware a new machine had been installed in the car park (which is not managed by the claimant) but was not clear which car park the machine related to so brought a ticket and sought clarification. The Defendant sought clarification upon immediately entering the soft play of the Claimants premises. The Defendant was advised by the Claimants employee that parking was free for people using the facilities.
  
• The purported contract entered into by the motorist is a simple consumer financial contract. An offer of parking is made in return for payment of a small tariff. The Operator is seeking to impose a charge for breach of contract. The loss for failure to make this payment is easily calculable as that unpaid tariff. Anything in excess is clearly a penalty and unfair contract term
  
• The Defendant made an offer of the unpaid tariff without accepting any liability. Which the Defendants believes to be a true representation of costs included.
  
• The Defendant does however deny any claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons
  
  Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief

KeithP

I'm not sure the court will allow a second attempt at a defence statement without paying them a lot of money.

Hopefully someone will be able to confirm that, one way or another.

Umkomaas

My understanding is that it’s £255. A plea as an unrepresented LiP, totally naive about the court procedures might have some sway, but if it’s a wholesale change of direction, then I think this might be tricky.

Lamilad

If this is related to your other thread then you should post it on there one issue > one thread! Ask a board guide to merge your threads

If you have already submitted your defence then you cannot change it without paying the relevant court fee.

Illiterateplonker

Sorry Lamilad, I had Included this question in my original thread however I hadn’t received a response. I shall look into merging them right now as I’m not sure what a board guide is.

With regards to me defence I had received a ‘general form of judgement’ which states I have 28 days to send an amended defence. My defence is a more ‘professional’ (I think) than my original. However it is still based on the exact same facts.

I will look into merging them now. Thank you

Lamilad

With regards to me defence I had received a ‘general form of judgement’ which states I have 28 days to send an amended defence

A rather important detail to omit? In that case, of course, you can submit another defence.

Umkomaas

Lamilad wrote: »

A rather important detail to omit? In that case, of course, you can submit another defence.

Thank goodness that’s come out now, this could have consumed significant forum resources in guiding the OP completely down the wrong path.

A real example of why a new thread about the same case, divorced from background detail, is not acceptable - and one which could have been potentially costly.

Illiterateplonker

Apologies. This is all new to me. I had up until now never used a forum. (I wish I’d looked into it earlier). I’ve requested somebody to merge my threads. (Thanks for making me aware - I think I’m slowly getting to grips with how it all works now.
I have read the ‘Newbies’ bible which has been an absolute god send, and pretty interesting actually.
Are you able to offer any advise on my defence at all.
The problem I have which is what I’m questioning in my defence is the fact I purchased a ticket initially. I definitely believe I have a case on the signage, but I’m pretty sure, the fact I was verbally told I needn’t have purchased one won’t actually stand up in a court of law.

Lamilad

I’m pretty sure, the fact I was verbally told I needn’t have purchased one won’t actually stand up in a court of law.

Correct.

Remove these paras..... further advice when your threads are merged

• The purported contract entered into by the motorist is a simple consumer financial contract. An offer of parking is made in return for payment of a small tariff. The Operator is seeking to impose a charge for breach of contract. The loss for failure to make this payment is easily calculable as that unpaid tariff. Anything in excess is clearly a penalty and unfair contract term
• The Defendant made an offer of the unpaid tariff without accepting any liability. Which the Defendants believes to be a true representation of costs included.