ESPE PCN County Court Letter

spyro101

Hi all,
Last November a parking charge was issued to my vehicle (which I no longer own) on the grounds of overstaying the paid time.
I have had various threatening letters from number of different companies, such as ES parking enforcement, Wright Hassall solicitors ZZPS and Gladstones Solicitors asking for the money and threatening with bailiffs - all of which i have ignored.

Im now at the point of a County Court Claim Form which I have followed the guide to acknowledge the service. So I should have 28 days from now to submit my defence.
Im just wondering how to start my defence and what to include.
The original ticket issued to the car has the wrong registration wrote on it, however the letters sent have the correct reg so I'm not sure if that stands for anything?

Also unfortunately the car park is around a 2 hour drive from my house however if I need to go to gather evidence I am prepared to do so.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Redx

you have 28 days from the date of service, not from today

you need to read post #2 of that NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread and read other members defences from the last 6 months or so, maybe read a dozen , preferably GLADRAGS defences like this one posted today

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5756917

then you adapt one of them to your own purpose , making sure it is factually correct as you are signing it as being truthful , so edit it accordingly

then post it for persusal and critique

try google maps for signage etc

spyro101

Thanks for the reply, below is my draft defence

Im unsure if I'm arguing the correct points or if i should include the fact that the PCN ticket had a different registration number to the vehicle it was issued to.
Google maps wasn't much use for signage unfortuantely so maybe I need to make a trip to the car park before submitting?
As always any help and advice is greatly appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM NO. __________ BETWEEN :

ES Parking Enforcement LTD
Claimant

AND

____________

Defendant
DEFENCE


Introduction

I am XXXX XX XXXX, Defendant in this matter It was not cost effective to employ a solicitor in this case so I have had to arrange this defence myself, please excuse me if I fail to use the correct legal terms. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.

3. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant’s case.

4. 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.

5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at XXXXXXX, Merseyside, Liverpool. The PCN stated the contravention as “Overstayed the time that you paid for.”


Rebuttal of Claim

6. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site!which communicated any additional punitive parking charge (effectively a private 'fine') in large lettering, in a clear and concise way, on a par with the tariff signs where the fees were advertised in the largest font. By contrast, the 'parking charge' is positively buried in small print, contrary to Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was any agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012.
f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
g. That the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.


7. It is further denied that the Defendant owes any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed.

8. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their!claim!is both unfounded and vexatious.

9. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

10. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.


My Defence

11. My defence will reply principally upon the following points:

12. The signage on this site was inadequate to!form!a contract with the motorist. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

b. Further, Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ can be seen as applicable in this case, as the parking charge notice of £100 (being ‘out of all proportion’ with expectations of drivers in this car park and thus being an onerous term) should have been effectively: “In red letters with a red hand pointing to it” i.e. Very clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering. Lord Denning stated this in the case of Spurling vs Bradshaw Ltd; “The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient”.

c. The claimant is put to strict proof that the signage on the date in question clearly sets out the onerous terms of a parking charge notice, to sufficiently draw the attention of a visitor, as set out in the leading judgement of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
d. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

13. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

14. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to 'form' contracts. It says:

2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and!form!liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code

15. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above

16. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:

1.1 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.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.

b. 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.

c. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

d. 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

17. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a residential car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis
Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme!Court!in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves.

18. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. 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 Freedom Act 2012 (“POFA”). The claimant is put to strict proof.

19. If the Claimant seeks to allege that any such presumption exists, 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 provisions. 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 strict limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

20. The Defendant denies that they 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. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council, which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

21. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the!Claim!from £xx to £xx. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

c. 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.

22. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

23. 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

24. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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.

25. In view of all the foregoing the!court!is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.

26. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Signed______________________

nosferatu1001

If the ntd (pcn on car) does not match the NtK (what came through the post) then they cannot use pofa to hold the keeper liable.

spyro101

Thanks for the reply,
so if I include that in my defence how would you go about writing it and what legislation would it be referenced to?

Just any pointers would be really helpful.

Thanks again as always.

nosferatu1001

the legislation is POFA2012 schedule 4.
I can bet it’s been written for you already somewhere. Newbies thread, post 2, plus search this forum for defences from 2017

claxtome

Comments about your current version of the defence:
1) It needs to be all written in the third person present tense so no use of "my defence" or "was". Always refer to the Defendant.
2) Surprised to see you mention BPA when the Claimant is an IPC AOS member.
3) If the overstay was less than around 20 minutes you can use in your defence grace periods and the overstay is de minimis (Look in the IPC Code of Practice and quote from there).
4) Bear in mind that if you paid to park you agreed to the signage (contract) and therefore formed a contract.

spyro101

Ahhh,
So it would be a waste of time arguing that a contract was not formed as a ticket was purchased.

In regards to the BPA would you recommend removing the mention of that in the defence as they are accredited?

Unfortunately the overstay was quite a while due to mistaking the 1 day parking for 24 hour parking - sign was very misleading :doh:

Thanks again

claxtome

Hard to argue a contract was not formed when you paid ;-)
Suggest you look closely at paragraphs 6 and 12 and remove some of it.

Would remove BPA as they are not BPA Approved members and therefore don't have to conform to their CoP. See link->
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Approved-Operators

Unfortunately the overstay was quite a while due to mistaking the 1 day parking for 24 hour parking - sign was very misleading.

Hmm typical. I suggest you get some photos of the misleading signs for your witness statement/evidence if the case gets that far if you are able to afford the time/petrol to return.

or if i should include the fact that the PCN ticket had a different registration number to the vehicle it was issued to.

The PCN is the Notice to Driver (NTD) and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 states what the NTD should contain.

My own personal opinion is a PCN with an incorrect registration won't carry much weight at court on its own. Other more experienced members may have a different opinion.

I think your best line of defence is to defend as keeper and point out their failings against POFA 2012 Schedule 4 with their Notice to Keeper in terms of timing and wording (assuming their are failings) so can't pursue keeper; you are exercising your right to not identify the driver.

Coupon-mad

You can argue that a contract was only formed to pay a tariff that was in large lettering, and the terms were ambiguous in that they conflated '1 day parking' as if it was '24 hour' parking. No contract to pay £100 fine was ever agreed, or even known about, as that term/sum was hidden in small print, etc.etc. Spurling v Bradshaw, blah blah, Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' (search the forum).

And you would also state that such an ambiguity MUST be interpreted on the way that most favours the consumer.

spyro101

Again, thanks everyone for your input, much appreciated.

Please see my revised defence as far as I can tell from paragraph 8 of POFA the NTK contains the information necessary and it arrived within 53 days so I'm unsure I can use that in my defence, also in regards to forming a contract, I have amended to suit without shooting my self in the foot - I hope. (Thanks to claxtome and Coupon-mad for pointing this out).

Also I'm having a trip out to Liverpool in the morning to obtain photos of the signs, but ill make a day of it. :beer:

IN THE COUNTY!COURT
CLAIM!NO. __________! BETWEEN :

ES Parking Enforcement LTD
Claimant

AND

____________

Defendant
DEFENCE


Introduction

I am XXXX XX XXXX, Defendant in this matter It was not cost effective to employ a solicitor in this case so I have had to arrange this defence myself, please excuse me if I fail to use the correct legal terms. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. This is the defendants statement of truth and the defendants defence.

3. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant’s case.

4. 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.

5. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at XXXXXX, Merseyside, Liverpool. The PCN stated the contravention as “Overstayed the time that you paid for.”


Rebuttal of Claim

7. It is denied that:
a. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
b. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site!which communicated any additional punitive parking charge (effectively a private 'fine') in large lettering, in a clear and concise way, on a par with the tariff signs where the fees were advertised in the largest font. By contrast, the 'parking charge' is positively buried in small print, contrary to Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
c. That in addition to the parking charge there was any agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.
d. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
f. That the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.


8. It is further denied that the Defendant owes any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their!claim!is both unfounded and vexatious.

9. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

10. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.




The Defendants Defence

11. The Defendants defence will reply principally upon the following points:

12. The ticket issued to the windscreen of the vehicle had a different registration number to the one of the actual vehicle so it is a nullity, as such, no proper notice to the driver was ever actually served. The notice also simply says P**R rather than the actual address or land that the vehicle was parked.
Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the POFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Driver is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.


13. A contract was only formed to pay a tariff that was listed in large lettering, the terms were ambiguous in that they conflated ‘1 day parking’ as if t was ’24 hour’ parking. No contract to pay a £100 fine was ever agreed, or even known about, as the sum was hidden in small print, such an ambiguity must be interpreted that most favours the consumer. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that such a contract was formed.

a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

b. Further, Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ can be seen as applicable in this case, as the parking charge notice of £100 (being ‘out of all proportion’ with expectations of drivers in this car park and thus being an onerous term) should have been effectively: “In red letters with a red hand pointing to it” i.e. Very clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering. Lord Denning stated this in the case of Spurling vs Bradshaw Ltd; “The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient”.

c. The claimant is put to strict proof that the signage on the date in question clearly sets out the onerous terms of a parking charge notice, to sufficiently draw the attention of a visitor, as set out in the leading judgement of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
d. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

14. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant wishes to point out that there is a test of good faith.

Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

15. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to!form!contracts. It says:

2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and!form!liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code


16. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above

17. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 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.


18. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:

1.1 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.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.

b. 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.

c. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

d. 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

19. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his!claim!is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a residential car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis
Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme!Court!in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves.

20. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. 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 Freedom Act 2012 (“POFA”). The claimant is put to strict proof.

21. If the Claimant seeks to allege that any such presumption exists, 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 provisions. 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 strict limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

22. The Defendant denies that they 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. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council, which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

23. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £xx to £xx. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of!claim!is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

c. 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.

24. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

25. 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

26. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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.

27. In view of all the foregoing the!court!is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.

28. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.


Signed______________________