CPM PCN at IAS stage

beamerguy

Tristanito wrote: »

Hi all,
So I've ignored quite a few threatening letters from Gladstones and a new one came tonight, from the County Court Business Centre, entitled "Claim Form" (8 pages that they want me to fill in), asking me to pay the amount + interest.
Should I just continue to ignore?
Thanks

Gladstones flexing their tiny muscles again.

You cannot ignore but you can rebut this.

Gladstones must prove to you their claim, that is pictures etc and proof of their claim.

Gladstones are adding a fake £60 so have they done this to you

KeithP

Tristanito wrote: »

Hi all,
So I've ignored quite a few threatening letters from Gladstones and a new one came tonight, from the County Court Business Centre, entitled "Claim Form" (8 pages that they want me to fill in), asking me to pay the amount + interest.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Tristanito

Hi all,

I'm afraid to say that I did receive a letter before claim a few weeks ago and didn't realise what it was so ignored it as all the previous letters from Glastones... My bad really.
The Claim Form I now received has an issue date of 8th November. The total amount is now 246.48 (171.48 amount claimed, 25 court fee and 50 legal costs).
What do you suggest I do now? Have I still got chances to win this case and is it still worth preparing a defence? They have pictures of my vehicle. It was only parked there for a few minutes.
Thanks for help.

Fruitcake

You have a very good chance of winning this.

You must acknowledge the claim and state you will defend, but do not put anything in the defence box. Not even a full stop.

Start by reading the step by step guide to court from post 2 of the NEWBIES.

KeithP

Tristanito wrote: »

The Claim Form I now received has an issue date of 8th November.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, you have until Tuesday 27th November to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.

A whole month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Tristanito

Thank you all, I just submitted my AoS.

Regarding the defence, I've read all the examples listed in the Newbies thread, including the one about "Irrelevant Defences and How To Avoid Them" (e.g. the one about not seeing the signs).

In this particular case, my vehicle was parked for a few minutes on a private parking (there were signs, although very small and low) and someone (perhaps a resident) took some pictures and sent it to CPM.

I previously managed to avoid a parking fine by claiming that the minimum grace period of 10 mins wasn't allowed by the parking company. Is this something that applies to private parkings? The few minutes the car was parked there simply allowed the driver to get off and read the tiny signs before choosing to exit the car park.

Tristanito

Here's my first attempt at a defence. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on XX/XX/XX at XX.XX (time) on a private land (XXXX address).

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXX was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle XXXX. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

4. The Claimant's signage is displayed at the entrance of the car park, below the driver's eye level and therefore cannot be read from a passing vehicle. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. In order to read those signs, one must park and exit the vehicle.

5. When responding to the Defendant's PCN appeal, the Claimant stated that "It is the driver's responsibility when leaving their vehicle unattended to observe the area and check parking is permitted. There is clear signage placed throughout the parking areas stating that the land is private property and restrictions apply". The Defendant confirms that the driver parked the car, left the vehicle to check the signage, then returned to the vehicle and exited the car park.

6. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the Claimant. The Defendant confirms that the driver was only parked in the car park for a couple of minute, the time necessary to come out of the car and to check the signage. The British Parking Association Code of Practice 13.1 – 13.4 states:

13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

The Defendant's vehicle was in and out of the car park within a few minutes.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. When asked to provide this information following the Defendant's PCN appeal, the Claimant stated that it was under no obligation to provide the requested information and only stated that it held a legal contract that authorised it to monitor the parking area on behalf of the landowner.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, other than "time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge". It therefore appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. The Claimant's aggressive business practice over the past year, and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using the Defendant's car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to the Defendant.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Tristanito

Hi all,

Just checking if you've had a chance to review my defence?

Thanks for your help!

Castle

UKCPM are in the IPC, not the BPA, so the 10 minutes grace periods won't apply. The IPC simply say in section 15 "Sufficient time must be allowed":-
https://theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf

If you haven't already done so, send UKCPM a SAR to include copies of all the information they hold on you and your vehicle; (which will include the Operative's notes and the source of the information).

Tristanito

Thank you, I amended my defence accordingly, see below at the bottom of this message. Any more suggestions on how I could improve my defence? Thank you for your support.

Regarding the SAR for all info they hold on me and my vehicle, when I initially appealed I requested the following from UKCPM, however they responded that they were under no obligation to provide all this and sent me a link to their website to check all the images of my vehicle (paymyticket.co.uk). However I'm unable to locate the images there. Are you saying that I should ask again for all images and the additional info you mentioned above (notes and sources)? How should I contact them? Email? Post?

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

UPDATED DEFENCE:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on XX/XX/XX at XX.XX (time) on a private land (XXXX address).

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXX was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle XXXX. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

4. The Claimant's signage is displayed at the entrance of the car park, below the driver's eye level and therefore cannot be read from a passing vehicle. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. In order to read those signs, one must park and exit the vehicle.

5. When responding to the Defendant's PCN appeal, the Claimant stated that "It is the driver's responsibility when leaving their vehicle unattended to observe the area and check parking is permitted. There is clear signage placed throughout the parking areas stating that the land is private property and restrictions apply". The Defendant confirms that the driver parked the car, left the vehicle to check the signage, then returned to the vehicle and exited the car park.

6. The minimum grace period was not allowed by the Claimant. The Defendant confirms that the driver was only parked in the car park for a couple of minutes, the time necessary to come out of the car and to check the signage. The Independent Parking Committee Code of Practice states:
15. Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

The Defendant's vehicle was in and out of the car park within a few minutes.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. When asked to provide this information following the Defendant's PCN appeal, the Claimant stated that it was under no obligation to provide the requested information and only stated that it held a legal contract that authorised it to monitor the parking area on behalf of the landowner.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, other than "time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge". It therefore appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. The Claimant's aggressive business practice over the past year, and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using the Defendant's car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to the Defendant.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date