Gladstones / Ace Security Services - 2 Separate Cases - Please Help!

Coupon-mad

I would say it is too long. Take a look at these concise defences by bargepole:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73577933#Comment_73577933

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73500218#Comment_73500218

Cut out the waffle and we will be getting to the crux of the defence.

Lamilad

As above that defence is far too long.

Your defence is to state the reasons why you dispute the claim in bullet point/ brief detail format. You do not get into detailed argument - that comes later.

KeithP

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was replaced by the Consumer Rights Act on 1 October 2015.

...which makes one doubt how recent the rest of that defence is?

DerrickDuval123

Hi Guys,

Thanks for all of your advice and help on this so far - I've since completed my AOS and have until the end of the week to submit my defence. (With the xmas period i've had to leave this to this last minute, so any swift feedback is much much appreciated )

I found a fairly recent post by Infernouk who won their case and it looks very similar to mine. I've tailored and tweaked the subtle differences to my situation - My only concern is that some of the feedback on my first draft was that it was too long a defence? P.S big thanks to infernouk for posting on here. If you are a Newbie and in a similar position (Not the resident, but legitimate visitor - Search "InfernoUK" in the toolbar on the Forum).
Truly shows the value of these forums as other people will definitely find themselves in the same position as another person falling victim to these scammers!

Updated Defence below:

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. It is admitted that the defendant, xxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle (xxxx xxx).

2. The vehicle was at all times when at the residence, properly parked and it is believed it is common ground that it was neither causing an obstruction nor was it unauthorised, being parked at the permission of a permitted resident.

3. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

4. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim.

5. This claim merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any 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'. Nor are any clear times or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.
#

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle having actively ignored my prior requests for this information in written form. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

10. Authorities to support my defence include but are not limited to the (higher court level) Appeal case heard at Oxford County Court by Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC, in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. Similar Small Claim decisions in 2016 include Pace v Mr N C6GF14F0 and Link Parking v Ms P - C7GF50J7. All three cases were brought by Gladstones for parking operators (including the original Jopson claim which went to appeal and is persuasive on the lower Courts). In all cases, it was found that the parking company could not override residents’ existing rights by requiring a permit to park and that the signs were of no consequence, due to the primacy of contract enjoyed by the Defendants. His Honour Charles Harris QC remarked in the Jopson appeal case decision that life in a resident’s block would be unworkable if visitors, delivery drivers etc. were expected to park immediately obtaining a permit (which a visitor would not have).

11. Even if the Court is minded to consider that a visitor must display a permit there must be a reasonable 'grace period' time allowed to obtain this from the residents property – Given that this property is a large block of flats which has a number of flights of stairs).
There is no evidence that this time was allowed. Immediate ticketing or lack of a fair grace period is contrary to the IPC code of practice, being a predatory and unfair business practice.

12. Even if the court believes the signs were possible to see, the wording is prohibitive, it states you must display a permit to park, forbidding parking otherwise. It is therefore unable to offer a legitimate contact allowing parking for £100 if the driver decides to park. As Seen in PCM vs Bull (2016) where PCM used similar signage and the verdict summarized that all the sign is essentially saying is “you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass”, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass. This verdict has been reached in regard to PCM signage of this nature at numerous other claim hearings, IPC signage does not create a contract as the notice is forbidding.

13. 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.

14. The alleged debt(s) 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

15. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

16. 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.

17. I request the court strike out the claim for 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''.

Coupon-mad

Not a bad start.

Also look at the style of:

- Johnersh's own space defence, as linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2. It has headings and reads well.

and

- Bargepole's recent concise defence he wrote for a poster, just to see how short you can make it and to remove the repetition and unnecessary commentary about Gladstones.

DerrickDuval123

Thanks, I'll take a look through!

I'm sure the more detailed versions I've prepared will come in handy when submitting my Witness Statement.

Any thoughts on how i should fare on this given my only worry is that I didn't have a Permit when visiting?

I know theirs lots of positivity on here about winning cases, but feel that maybe my situation is less convincing given No Permit / Not the resident etc.

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

I think if you can show that signage was sparse and not 'bound to be seen' your chances are as goo as any, and you may as well fight it. Nothing to lose once you start the process - all good life experience - and you are costing them money!

DerrickDuval123

Hi All,

Thanks so much for all of your help and contributions previoulsy.

Thoght i'd share an update on this as keen for a bit of advice on something else to do with ths.

So, Acknowledgement of Service complete and Defence submitted.

Since then i've also received a county court letter for a the second parking offence (mentioned in my first post). This was at the same location and within a few weeks/month or so of the first.

Gladstones hadn't sent me any other letters and clearly haven't followed correct protocols.

I'm also thinking to write to the court to see whether they would consider striking out as they are requesting i acknowledge service for the separate claim and isn't it a clear waste of time / lack of attention (robo-claim) if they are not even consolidating both of the cases into one court date?

Any thoughts on this or what to do would really help me, thanks!!

nosferatu1001

You still acknowledge etc. If you want you can make an application (£100) stating it sho7d be struck as an abuse of process. Would get that fee back if accepted.

DerrickDuval123

Thanks! Yes i've acknowledged Common sense would say that the courts must be thinking why are these guys taking me to court over the exact same thing, in the exact same location?

Would this not bode well in my favor, can I use this? Seems like they're clearly mis-using the court process and wasting their time? Surely if they were in the right they'd be taking me to court on one single count on one single day?

Appreciate any thoughts on this