Gladstones County Court Claim Form

WBM

Also do you have the name of sassi's thread? I am having a bit of difficulty trying to find it.

[Deleted User]

I'd calm down the pleading a little.... it reads as an angry note (which I'm sure it is) but perhaps at the expense of some of the better arguments.

Also note that pleading dishonesty could, in principle, see this assigned to the fast track (such allegations tend to be robustly defended with longer trials). Perhaps remote, but worth remembering.

I'd be more inclined to go with asserting something like a negligent overstatement if the claim which was in any event not properly rendered...

Coupon-mad

Sounds better, Johnersh.

WBM

Hi Johnersh,

I have amended the statement to remove phrases that would suggest I am accusing the Claimant of dishonesty, although the statement you recommended sounded great but I am not sure where to put it within the argument.

I just wanted to confirm that I don't need to send or take any of the case transcripts that I have referenced?

My final draft (hopefully) is below for my WS hopefully I can win the case with my arguments. I will give it my all regardless. Thank you all for your continuing help!

WS:

I, ************ of **************************************** am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from two years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.

4. My Defence is repeated.

5. At the time in 2016, the insurance had full comprehensive cover so any other person such as a family member could have driven the vehicle at the time, whom I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

6. This unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report WYPE Ltd to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2016.

7. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing for a period of time then suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay £328.30 including the legal insult of interest, for what was apparently an unproven £90 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.

8. The claimant has failed to properly respond to my request made on 08/06/2017 by Royal Mail postal service, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner!!!8217;s behalf. My request was not actioned appropriately (I received 4 questionable colour photos of the car, the car park and the original PCN only, without further information).

9. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

10. I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £50 Legal representative!!!8217;s costs to pursue an alleged £90 debt, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable.

11. The claimant described the charge of £50 as !!!8216;legal fees!!!8217; not !!!8216;contractual costs!!!8217;, CPR.14 does not permit these to be recoverable in the Small Claims Court.

12. 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 £90 to £328.30.

13. 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. However, I am not aware of any postal Notice to Keeper being served so put the Claimant to proof that the Notice to Keeper was served. Therefore I am relying on the amount stated on the picture of the sign provided by the claimant showing a £90 charge.

14. The first I have heard of this alleged charge was from a Debt Recovery company referred to on the letter as !!!8216;Debt Recovery Plus Ltd!!!8217; which stated the reason for issue as !!!8216;4-Parked in a permit only parking area without clearly displaying a valid permit!!!8217;. This is contrary to the sparse Particulars of Claim stated on the Claim form.

15. WY Parking Enforcement Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have 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 this case.

16. 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.

17. 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. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

18. I would like to point out that according to their parking sign this parking area does not offer a free parking period, so the ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply in this case.

19. The Claimant has no legitimate interest to set the charge. Considering the time of the alleged contravention was 10pm on a Saturday as is shown from the pictures provided to me by the Claimant. There is no legitimate interest that is being protected as there are no businesses operating at the parking area during that time.

20. The pictures that the Claimant has provided themselves shows that the parking sign is shrouded by the larger signs around it. Additionally, the sign itself is so small in size that it would be impossible to read it to be able to agree to its terms when entering the parking bay.

21. The Claimant has also duplicated the claim and is charging for the same alleged contravention twice. In an attempt at double recovery, in the Claimant's Letter Before Claim they have listed the same PCN Number on the same date with two separate charge amounts of £150 each. The Claim Form then is claiming 8% on a misdescribed '£300' charge. This is clearly an attempt at duplicating their claim either deliberately or negligently; if it is negligently then this is the epitome of a typical robo-claim emanating from what MPs described recently as an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18) industry.

21.1 Whilst any contravention or relevant contract/relevant obligation is denied, if there was a charge at all, it was £90. The Claimant must concede half the claim and it is astonishing that they have proceeded this far against a consumer, with no checks being made regarding the sum they are trying to recover, which is made up out of thin air with no basis in law.

21.2 The Claimant's failure to comply with the Practice Direction, failure to set out clear Particulars of Claim and their failure to correctly state the sum of the single parking charge pursued, has caused me considerable wasted time and stress, prevented the possible avoidance of litigation, and prevented me from being on an equal footing with the Claimant.

21.3. These failures and the vexatious nature of this typical cut & paste 'one size fits all' parking charge robo-claim, with no checks being made about the facts to show that the Claimant has any claim in law, cannot be described as 'trivial' and as a result, sanctions should be imposed as per para 41 of Mitchell v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795 which is re-iterated in para 24 of Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Coupon-mad

WBM wrote: »

Also do you have the name of sassi's thread? I am having a bit of difficulty trying to find it.

Errrm...you just search the members' list for sassi

WBM

Well I couldn't find Sassi's thread however I did find the post which used Sassi's thread's cost schedule for the counter claim where they were awarded £1,500, so that should do. Thank you for that!

[Deleted User]

Paras 2, 4, 9, 18 and 21.3 aren't needed imho.

2 and 4 are in the defence & 9 adds nothing very much.

PE v Beavis is about more than free parking. It's about penalties - it certainly does apply insofar as the penalty rule is engaged in all these cases.

Denton is about relief from sanctions which apply when directions of the court are missed. Deploying it as an argument to ask for sanctions to apply is misplaced and a misunderstanding of that law.

WBM

Hi Guys,

I'm trying to write my skeleton argument. I have received their witness statement in which they have stated that they are pursuing me as the keeper of the vehicle. Does this mean that I don't have to mention anything about I can't be assumed to be the driver since they aren't even saying that I am?

Also in their witness statement they are using pictures that aren't even of the exact parking spot my car was parked in. I want to dispute this and show that this is evidence that should not be allowed as it proves nothing.

In my Skeleton Argument do I repeat what is in my defence statement?

Coupon-mad

Does this mean that I don't have to mention anything about I can't be assumed to be the driver since they aren't even saying that I am?

I would cover both bases, as no doubt the Particulars of Claim said 'keeper or driver'.

In my Skeleton Argument do I repeat what is in my defence statement?

Put whatever you want as bullet points that summarise your defence, to help you in court and to help the Judge see your main points so you can move on from one to the next.

The SA should be one piece of paper, just a summary.

Also in their witness statement they are using pictures that aren't even of the exact parking spot my car was parked in. I want to dispute this and show that this is evidence that should not be allowed as it proves nothing.

So summarise a few bullet points in the SA, pulling apart ALL their evidence, pointing out the bits you want to cross examine the Claimant about & put them to proof, and questioning why the ''witness statement'' is written by someone who wasn't a witness & has never been to the car park.

WBM

Hey Coupon-mad

I have listed my skeleton defence below, I drafted it thinking it's a summary of the arguments. But have included the last point as a comment based off the evidence in the witness statement from the claimant. Although I'm not clear on your point about witness statement written by someone who has never been to the car park, am I not also a witness as the registered keeper doing the same thing?

If you don't mind having a look at the below to let me know if there are any points I should amend.

Skeleton Argument

1. The Claimant WY Parking Enforcement Limited (WYPE) has failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.

2. 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.

3. The Particulars of Claim (POC) fail to meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5.

4. The POC contain no facts and are not clear and concise as required by CPR 16.4 (a).

5. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished from this claim, due to the completely different facts.

6. Background relating to the registered keeper and time of parking.

7. No Contract for between the Claimant and the Defendant

8. Absence of 'registered keeper liability'

9. No legitimate interest to set the charge.

10. The sum claimed is a penalty - an attempt at 'triple recovery' as well as duplicating the claim.

11. Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

12. The evidence provided by the Claimant is not relevant to the facts. The images provided by the Claimant are for a different parking area and are not related to the area the car was in fact parked this is clearly evidence from the images provided.

I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Argument are true.

Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dated xxxxxxxxxxx