UK Car Park Management / Gladstones Claim Form received

woody1977

Hello all,

this is my first post on this forum and hoping to receive some sound advice for defending this case.

I have read the Newbies threads and the Court Claim Procedure threads and as requested am starting a new thread to address the Court Claim Form received from Gladstones on behalf of UK Car Park Management Ltd.

I have done the Acknowledgement of Claim online and have 28 days now, but feel as though I could have avoided this had I read all of the Newbies threads mentioned above as when I first received the letters from UKCPM I followed advice that I read online to ignore the letters and now no longer have them to refer to.

The most recent letter is a Claim Form relating to a charge on 01/09/2016 for breaching the terms of parking in a private pub car park. I did park in the car park and was a customer of the pub, but failed to get a receipt for my purchase to validate my parking. I thought nothing of it at the time as there were no parking attendants and I was in the beer garden with a clear view of the car park for the 30 minutes or so that I was there.

Does anyone have any thoughts or advice they can offer on how to draft a defence based on these facts?

Any assistance would be much appreciated!

Many thanks

Redx

you might not get any bespoke response where somebody analyses the facts , the forum is too busy for that with very , very few legal eaagles here plus they are snowed under too

but what you should be doing is drafting a defence and posting it for critique

at that points somebody might check the facts against the defence , at the same time

System

Have you asked the pub to cancel?

woody1977

Hello all, I have contacted the pub and the manager told me that UK CPM took on the contract to manage the car park in April 2016, a few months before the claim in question. He also told me that UK CPM fine them if they ask for customer fines to be removed and he can only request this if there is solid evidence that I was a customer. As it was so long ago and as I paid in cash at the pub I don't have any proof and apparently they only keep CCTV footage for two months so I can't use that to prove I was there. I do potentially have the witness statement of two friends who I was there with, one of whom also received a fine, but paid it as again had no proof of being a customer as also paid in cash.

I have written a draft of my defence, based on other recent and relevant defences and would really appreciate any feedback any of you might have.

In the County Court
Claim Number: ******************
Between
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED v ************************

DEFENCE STATEMENT

Preliminary
1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
“If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). 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;

“ 1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant ”

3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
3.2. The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
3.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

3.4.1 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.’

3.4.2. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

Background

It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings.

It is admitted that on ******* the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ******** as a customer of the establishment that owns the land in question, and therefore was not in breach of any of the terms of parking on the land.

6. UK Car Park Management Ltd 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 action regarding this claim.
6.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
6.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
6.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
7.1. 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.
7.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
7.2.1. 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.

Failure to set out clear parking terms
8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose 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, woefully 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
8.2. There is contradicting signage within the same car park which is placed in a more prominent and readable format. This signage mentions time restraints and contradicting fines.
8.3. UK Car Park Management Ltd had only recently placed their signage on the wall creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The IPC Code of Practice states that;

“Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.”

There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.


9.1. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
9.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
9.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
9.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

11. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

12. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

13. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

14. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Name - Signed - Date

Coupon-mad

I would remove #1 as it adds nothing, IMHO, since you already cover the landowner contract later on:

1. [STRIKE]The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
“If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.[/STRIKE]”

I would replace #1 with:

This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol For Debt Claims, 1st October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

Is this true, what other signs?

8.2. There is contradicting signage within the same car park which is placed in a more prominent and readable format. This signage mentions time restraints and contradicting fines.

and at the end I would add this section recently written by Johnersh, a solicitor poster here:

LOSS CLAIMED, COSTS AND INTEREST
15. If, which is denied, the Claimant was entitled to issue a parking ticket for which a charge is payable, It is denied that the amounts claimed by the Claimant are permitted by the terms of the contract or in law.
15.1 The signage refers to the amount of the charge being X. If the costs of enforcement are notional or predictable, these should appear on the sign if they are to be capable of agreement.
15.2 Legal costs are not recoverable in the small claims track pursuant to Part 27 CPR other than HMCTS costs
15.3 The correspondence from agents appointed by the Claimant appears to have unilaterally and arbitrarily applied additional charges without explanation or entitlement. These are not actual costs or costs incurred by the Claimant. It is averred that debt recovery agencies work on a no win/no fee basis and that no enhanced costs have been incurred at all. The Claim for such costs is an abuse of process and a breach of the indemnity principle.

16. For the reasons aforesaid, it is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

17. 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 above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

woody1977

Great, Thanks Coupon-mad, I will implement those changes and post up a revised draft before sending off.

woody1977

OK, here is a revised draft. Can anyone advise if this is good to send?

Many thanks!

>>

In the County Court
Claim Number: ******************
Between
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED v ************************


DEFENCE STATEMENT


PRELIMINARY
1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol For Debt Claims, 1st October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). 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;

“ 1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant ”

3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
3.2. The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
3.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

3.4.1 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.’

3.4.2. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.


BACKGROUND
It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings.

It is admitted that on ******* the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ******** as a customer of the establishment that owns the land in question, and therefore was not in breach of any of the terms of parking on the land.

6. UK Car Park Management Ltd 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 action regarding this claim.
6.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
6.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
6.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

7. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
7.1. 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.
7.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
7.2.1. 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.


FAILURE TO SET OUT CLEAR PARKING TERMS
8. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose 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, woefully 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
8.2. UK Car Park Management Ltd had only recently placed their signage on the wall creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The IPC Code of Practice states that;

“Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.”

There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.

9.1. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
9.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
9.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
9.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.


WHOLLY UNREASONABLE AND VEXATIOUS CLAIM
10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

11. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

12. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

13. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

14. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.


LOSS CLAIMED, COSTS AND INTEREST
15. If, which is denied, the Claimant was entitled to issue a parking ticket for which a charge is payable, It is denied that the amounts claimed by the Claimant are permitted by the terms of the contract or in law.
15.1 The signage refers to the amount of the charge being X. If the costs of enforcement are notional or predictable, these should appear on the sign if they are to be capable of agreement.
15.2 Legal costs are not recoverable in the small claims track pursuant to Part 27 CPR other than HMCTS costs
15.3 The correspondence from agents appointed by the Claimant appears to have unilaterally and arbitrarily applied additional charges without explanation or entitlement. These are not actual costs or costs incurred by the Claimant. It is averred that debt recovery agencies work on a no win/no fee basis and that no enhanced costs have been incurred at all. The Claim for such costs is an abuse of process and a breach of the indemnity principle.

16. For the reasons aforesaid, it is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

17. 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 above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Name - Signed - Date

woody1977

I've now received the Directions Questionnaire from the County Court Business Centre and filled in the responses as recommended by another poster on here, opposing Gladstones request for special directions to have the case heard on papers alone and requesting that the hearing be an oral one at my local county court. Scary stuff, but mediation doesn't seem like a route as they just want money and the whole point of this is to avoid giving them even a penny, and hopefully even retrieving some costs. I'll keep you posted...

beamerguy

woody1977 wrote: »

I've now received the Directions Questionnaire from the County Court Business Centre and filled in the responses as recommended by another poster on here, opposing Gladstones request for special directions to have the case heard on papers alone and requesting that the hearing be an oral one at my local county court. Scary stuff, but mediation doesn't seem like a route as they just want money and the whole point of this is to avoid giving them even a penny, and hopefully even retrieving some costs. I'll keep you posted...

Good for you, the right attitude:T

As Gladstones are incompetent, the courts know
they are incompetent, the chances are high that they
will have one last ditch to scam money from you with
a lower offer and once you ignore that, they will discontinue

They do this to avoid being whooped in court yet again

They might continue but as their claim is normally
very woeful, full of flaws, just get your costs schedule ready

woody1977

I've just received my Court date - Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) at my local County Court. Scary stuff!

Is anyone able to answer any of the following questions for me?

Do I need to do anything further, or do I just need to take documentation of my original Defence (see above)?

Should I have received evidence from UKCPM/Gladstones as all I have from them is the Claim Form and a letter with their "completed" Directions Questionnaire, but which doesn't actually have any of the fields filled in. Am I allowed to ask them to send me their original evidence relating to the case and the charge?

Any responses would be greatly received so I can go to Court as prepared as possible.

KeithP

If you re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ you will see that you need to prepare a witness statement - at least.

You should be using that post as your first port of call for guidance.