Gladstones County Court Claim Form

WBM

Hi All,

I am new on this forum but was wondering if you guys are able to help. Reading a lot of posts I see that this is a strong community willing to help people .

I have received a County court claim form from Gladstones and I was wondering if you can help me with my defence.

To give you a background on what happened; My car was parked on a street in front of a barber shop that was closed on a Saturday at around 10pm in 2016. There was a small sign on the wall that said 'Permit holders only Contract to Park'.

I previously received a letter before claim and requested to provide information based on guidance from 'loadsofchildren' for a different case (thread called Solicitor Letter Response?). I just slightly tweaked it to fit my scenario better.

Gladstone replied showing me a photograph of my parked car, the parking sign which looks quite small and there are other advertisement signs near it which are bigger than the parking sign (I'm not sure how to attach images on here otherwise would show you).

They did not provide information for:
1) whether they are pursuing me as the driver or keeper
2) whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
3) what the details of the claim are in regards to for how long the car was parked for and how the monies being claimed arose.
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, ask them what that represents and how it has been calculated.

They are relying on Beavis and VCS v HM Revenue to show the contracting party need not show they have the right to do what they have promised.

The parking charge on the sign says £90 however the amount claimed is £328.30, court fee £35, Legal representative costs £50 so total £413.30.

I am going go onto the moneyclaim website and click on the defend option based on the thread Court Claim Procedure (updated October 2016).

If there is any tips anyone can give regarding the defence i will really appreciate it .

Redx

just read recent gladrags defences over the last 3 months, plus the links and info in the NEWBIES sticky thread near the top of this forum

then post your finished draft on here for critique

until you have done that , you wont get any real feedback as such , cannot be done until you post your draft defence , after doing the AOS (as long as it does not say POC to follow)

[Deleted User]

Once you've uploaded photos to Dropbox or equivalent, post the link on the forum, replacing the first http:/ part with something else so it is not blocked - perhaps hXXp:/

beamerguy

We all realise that Gladstones are an incompetent solicitor
but we never realised just how stupid they are ??

Don't they understand that they must now comply to
the new procedures and failing to answer your questions
will be a disaster for them.

How does £90 grow into £328.30 ????

They don't want to tell you AND THEY MUST

How do they think they can rely on Beavis, that has no
bearing on your case whatsoever, judges have already
confirmed this.
And what will they try to drag out of VCS v HM Revenue ??
On this one, a judge will laugh his socks off

Gladstones are the biggest joke solicitor in the UK
and must be treated as such

Go to court and expose their rubbish to a judge, the courts
already know about them

WBM

Merry Christmas All!

I have drafted my defence can you please critique it, i'm not sure if it's a bit long however i have tried to get the points that were relevant to my case. Any feedback from experienced members is greatly appreciated:

1. The claimant failed to issue a Notice to Keeper (NTK) or Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the alleged infringement. This is not in accordance with the requirements of The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA). Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. UK Car Park Management have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-
’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) Sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’
The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period…is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

2. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract with any correspondence 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.’

3. 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 ‘

4. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
4.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
4.2. The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
4.3. 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.
4.4. 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.

4.4.1. 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.

4.4.2. 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:
5. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ******** which is subject to these proceedings.

6. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
6.1. 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 keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
6.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
6.2.1. There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
6.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
6.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, 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 provision. 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 strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

7. As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors who’s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for the lack of correspondence and details provided before and with this vague claim.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

8. UK Car Park Management Ltd is 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.
8.1. 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.
8.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
8.3. 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

9. 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 £90 to £300. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
9.1. 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 (never received).
9.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
9.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand (unknown as no NTK or PCN issued) 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
10. 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.
10.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
10.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
10.1.2. 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
10.1.3. 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.

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

11. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
11.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
11.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £90 debt.
11.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
11.4. 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.
12. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances, signage nor any legitimate interest. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case held, ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum without agreement on the charge and any issue of trespass would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. The amount claimed is an extravagant and an unconscionable penalty. Even if all the conditions had been met to disengage the penalty, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable ( ParkingEye v Somerfield). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.

In summary this case differs to 'the Beavis case' as:
i) The Private Parking Charge has not followed an "effectively binding" code of practice.
ii) The Claimant has no commercial justification
iii) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
iv) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
v) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
vi) There is no comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule.

Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
13. 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).

14. 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.

15. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, are 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).

16. 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.

17. 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.

Signed:
Date:

peter_the_piper

Would also be useful to check with council who owns the road to see if the PPC is entitled to deal with parking there.

""Permit holders only"", are they charging the driver with trespass?

WBM

Well they haven't said what their trying to bring the claim for. But i have said fir point 12 that it's trespass so can only bring a claim on the tort of trespass. Do you guys think the above defence is good enough to submit?

Coupon-mad

I've edited this version, below, see what you think. You can add evidence to it later, at the Witness Statement stage.

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No. DXXXXXXX

BETWEEN

UK Car Park Management Ltd (CLAIMANT)

-and-

xxxxx xxxxxxxx (DEFENDANT)

________

DEFENCE
________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any amount at all.

Preliminary
2. The Claimant 'UKCPM' has failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. Its sparse Particulars do not disclose any cause of action which could give rise to a claim, and their single-page Letter Before Claim was no more than an aggressive demand, designed to intimidate and mislead the defendant, rather than narrow the issues or provide any specific detail.

2.1. Despite the Defendant requesting this information in pre-action communication, this Claimant has failed to set out the basis of the claim - trespass or contractual breach? It has not specified how the sum sought represents any fee, charge, costs or damages incurred - nor evidenced that any contract existed or was breached - hence the Defendant is having to attempt to cover all possibilities, with no fair opportunity to make an informed response.

2.1.1. The Claimant's solicitors merely sent a photograph of the car and a very small, illegible UKCPM sign with much larger advertisement signs near it, and no other details, copies of letters, facts or evidence.


ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis is distinguished
3. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished from this claim, due to the completely different facts, including but not limited to:
i) There was no parking licence or offer, no consideration flowed and there was no contract capable of being breached.
ii) The Claimant did not follow the effectively binding IPC Code of Practice.
iii) The sum claimed is extortionate, and the predatory business model is punitive unconscionable.
iv) The Claimant has no standing or authority from the landowner.
v) There is no comparable legitimate interest or commercial justification to disengage the penalty rule.


Background - no contract
4. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured and more than one driver is permitted to use it.

4.1. In the sparse information provided to the Defendant, the car appears to be parked on public highway adjacent to shops, not in any private car park.

4.2. No indication was provided as evidence to support the Claimant's contractual authority to operate at this specific location. The Defendant avers that the business model utilised at this site is predatory, punitive, unauthorised by the landowner and operates contrary to the IPC Code of Practice.

4.3 It is averred that the Claimant is not the landowner and therefore lacks any cause of action. If it is alleged that a trespass had occurred then the remedy available for that tort (which is denied) is in the gift of the landowner alone, to seek damages.

4.4 It was confirmed by the Supreme Court that ParkingEye Ltd could only recover the £85 parking charge which more than covered all costs of the automated business model of a parking firm and was heavily weighted for profit. It was held that a parking firm not in possession could not recover any sum at all in damages, but the Supreme Court were willing to impose a penalty as allowable only in the unique context of that particular retail site of commercial value. In that case, the signs were 'very prominent' and clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout - with the parking charge in the largest lettering with a free parking licence being offered and accepted under contract, giving rise to a sum being payable by patrons who overstayed.

4.4.1. Conversely, in the present case there was no agreed contract. It is apparent to the Defendant that a driver would not have had a fair chance to read the very small terms on a sign at this location, where advertising posters and large lettering on the shop-front boards (none of which require a driver to stop and read them) completely dwarf the Claimant's sign.

4.4.2. Such is the density and complexity of the text on the sign that the most onerous term – the parking charge – is buried amongst a mass of small print. There are no signs adjacent to the kerb and no prominent terms facing a driver when parking, to alert them to any contract. This location fails to meet the “Red Hand Rule”, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.

4.5 It is the Defendant's belief that even if the UKCPM sign was considered readable from a car parking at the kerbside at the material time, the terms are prohibitive. The wording is at best - if readable and prominent - capable of forming a contract with permit-holders only, because all others are forbidden to park and threatened with an unrecoverable penalty. Unlike in the Beavis case where a free licence to park was offered, then breached, in this case no consideration, no contractual parking licence (nor any offer at all of anything of value to a driver) was extended to non-permit holders.


Absence of 'registered keeper liability'
5. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) to identify the driver. The balance of probabilities is not tipped in the Claimant's favour, given the fact that more than one person drives this car. 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 Freedoms Act 2012 ("the POFA").

5.1 If seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA, the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.1.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.1.2. that this Claimant has established itself as the offeror and creditor; and
5.1.3. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements and the Defendant is unaware of any postal 'notice to keeper', or a windscreen 'parking charge notice' that the Claimant may allege were served.

5.2. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption do exist, 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 the POFA, which makes no such provision.


The sum claimed is a penalty - an attempt at 'triple recovery'
6. 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 been inflated from £90 to over £300. This appears to be an attempt at more than 'triple recovery', which the POFA specifically disallows.

6.1. Schedule 4 of the POFA, Paragraph 4(5), states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (a document which the Defendant avers was never received, but cannot have exceeded £90, if the Claimant is relying upon the sign in the photograph provided). The clear intention of Parliament was that parking charges on private land be capped at the (already inflated to include profit) sum on the Notices, with double recovery being specifically disallowed.

6.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred such exorbitant costs to pursue an alleged £90 debt. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable. No indemnity costs or damages have been incurred, nor were any debt collection 'fees' paid by this Claimant, and nor were such sums specified in prominent lettering on any sign at the point of the driver parking. It is averred that the sum claimed is invented out of thin air as part of the Claimant's solicitors' robo-claim model.


Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
7. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in operating a predatory model with what appears to be deliberately scarce signage, then intimidating the Defendant with misleading threats in the pre-action stage before pursuing this claim, is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

7.1. 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 on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

8. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts. 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.

9. In the alternative, 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.

Signed:

Date:

I removed this because it's overly wordy and I can't understand how it can be that there was no PCN and no Notice to Keeper, at all:

1. The claimant failed to issue a Notice to Keeper (NTK) or Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for the alleged infringement. This is not in accordance with the requirements of The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA). Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. UK Car Park Management have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-
’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) Sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’
The applicable section here is (b) because the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states: ’’The relevant period…is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended’’

I also removed this unless you are really DENYING being the driver? If you can deny being the driver, add it back in where you admit to being the registered keeper.

It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

And, how can this be just one parking event? To get to over £300 they must surely have stated more than one date and contravention?! Can't be over £400, altogether! Are you sure?

£90 however the amount claimed is £328.30, court fee £35, Legal representative costs £50 so total £413.30.

WBM

Hi Coupon-mad,

Thank you for your reply.

The reason I added point 1 was because the NTC was not sent within 14 days of the alleged infringement. Because POFA states that ’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period;.

So the relevant period is 14 days which was not done. Additionally, Gladstones have not proved who was driving at the time, my car has full comprehensive insurance, so anyone else who has full comprehensive insurance can also drive the car, so I would say it is for Gladstone to say who was driving or pursue me as the keeper of the vehicle (in the form they have stated they are pursuing me as keeper and or driver). Also I would say leaving a PCN on the car itself is not handing it to the keeper since there is no evidence that it got to the keeper of the vehicle.

Would you not agree to point 1?

For your question on whether it is 1 parking event. I assure you it is. It seems that Gladstones have decided to charge me twice for the same alleged infringement. That's the amount they have put on the claim form. I don't know exactly how to mention this point, so I am relying on the prove how you got to the figure you are claiming (point 9). Unless you think there is a better way to argue this?

Thank you for your help.

Coupon-mad

The reason I added point 1 was because the NTC was not sent within 14 days of the alleged infringement. Because POFA states that ’’The notice must be given by— (a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period;.

So the relevant period is 14 days which was not done.

OK but your version unnecessarily quotes the POFA (not needed in such detail at this point) and it says no NTK was served...but it was. Just that it arrived after day 15 (it's 14 days from the day after the event, so must arrive by day 15).

If it arrived over a month later then I would suggest there was a windscreen PCN. Whether you found one or not. And if UKCPM show this, then your argument about keeper liability goes nowhere.

Also I would say leaving a PCN on the car itself is not handing it to the keeper since there is no evidence that it got to the keeper of the vehicle.

They don't have to hand it to anyone. Leaving a PCN then posting a NTK over a month later, is OK under para 8 of the POFA.

Additionally, Gladstones have not proved who was driving at the time, my car has full comprehensive insurance, so anyone else who has full comprehensive insurance can also drive the car, so I would say it is for Gladstone to say who was driving or pursue me as the keeper of the vehicle (in the form they have stated they are pursuing me as keeper and or driver).

Yep I have covered that in the revised draft I suggested.

For your question on whether it is 1 parking event. I assure you it is. It seems that Gladstones have decided to charge me twice for the same alleged infringement. That's the amount they have put on the claim form. I don't know exactly how to mention this point, so I am relying on the prove how you got to the figure you are claiming (point 9). Unless you think there is a better way to argue this?

On the left of page 1 of the claim form, what does it say exactly under Particulars?

WBM

Okay then I might as well remove that point, if they don't have to prove the notice was handed to the keeper. The PCN was left on the car but the letter came a month later.

On the claim form it states: The driver of the vehicle registration *** (the Vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on 15/10/2016, 15/10/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at (the address) The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £300 for Parking Charges/Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £28.30 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.07.