Gladstones Claim form

Lee1000

Hello, I hope someone can give me some advice. I have received a claim form from the county court. Gladstones are claiming unpaid parking tickets. I was not the driver but am the keeper, they sent me an incorrect notice to keeper as they quoted 28 days to respond to the ntk rather than that defined by the POFA which is 28 days starting the day after the notice was given. Does anyone think I can use this in defence?

Thank you

Redx

if the NTK failed POFA2012 then it will be one of many defence points you will be composing

see the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread , post #2

make sure you do the AOS online as well , that is your first job unless it says PARTICULARS OF CLAIM to follow

Lee1000

Thanks for your reply. The ntk shows a penalty fine of £100. There are 2 tickets and they are requesting £360 + court fees. Are they within their rights to request more than that on the ntk as I am the keeper not the driver?

Thank you

Redx

the paperwork will not mention the words FINE or PENALTY at all , you made that up yourself

although they will add various costs to the claim, you can and should object to these extra unwarranted costs because it is the small claims court

in theory they can claim the outstanding amount of say £100 for each invoice , plus the costs of taking it to court , so for one pcn this is typically £175 , but a judge may award less depending on your defence and objections etc

as I said earlier , you should do the AOS online and start drafting your defence and posting it on here for critique

until you do this, its no good anyone second guessing and answering you

Lee1000

Will do.

Thank you

Lee1000

I have drafted my first defence and would be grateful for any comment

The vehicle was parked in an incorrect bay on a private car park, based on the tenants parking permit. I was not the driver but I am not sure I should bring the tenancy into the picture because the driver knows he parked incorrectly as there were no valid bays available when he needed to park



It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two other named drivers permitted to use it.

1. The Defendant denies that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety.

2. The Defendant denies that he was the driver of the vehicle and could not be party to any alleged contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015).

3. The Defendant is not liable for any sum due, as the POFA2012 has not been complied with by the Claimant. The Claimant has not followed the relevant statuary requirements, specifically deadlines and wording, as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

4. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the Claimant’s case. The particulars of claim merely provide dates and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the Claimant's solicitors.

5) The Claimant's solicitor did not send the defendant a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A list of the relevant documents on which their client intends to rely.
b) How the “charge amount” has been calculated and justified.
c) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.

6) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs and parking bay markings.
In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

7) 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.
HMCTS 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.
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.

8) In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that the Claimant has no cause of action, and has no evidence that the Defendant was in breach of any contractual terms, whether expressly, by conduct, or at all.

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature

Date

Lee1000

I've added that this case can be distinguished from Elliot v Loake and Parking Eye v Bevis but still not sure whether to bring up the tenancy parking issue

Modified defence


It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two other named drivers permitted to use it.

1) The Defendant denies that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety.

2) The Defendant denies that he was the driver of the vehicle and could not be party to any alleged contract. This distinguishes the case from Elliot vs Loake, in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity. Further, Elliot v Loake was a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, as Elliot was prosecuted for S.172, which cannot apply here.
PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015).

3) The Defendant is not liable for any sum due, as the POFA2012 has not been complied with by the Claimant. The Claimant has not followed the relevant statuary requirements, specifically deadlines and wording, as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

4) The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the Claimant’s case. The particulars of claim merely provide dates and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the Claimant's solicitors.

5) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the British Parking Association (“BPA”) Code of Practice (“CoP”) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this case. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

6) The Claimant's solicitor did not send the defendant a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A list of the relevant documents on which their client intends to rely.
b) How the “charge amount” has been calculated and justified.
c) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.

7) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs and parking bay markings.
In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

8) 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.
HMCTS 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.
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.

9) In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that the Claimant has no cause of action, and has no evidence that the Defendant was in breach of any contractual terms, whether expressly, by conduct, or at all.

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature

Date

Lee1000

Hello, I have a Court Claim for 2 parking tickets which, including interest and charges, comes to around £450 from Gladstones/UKCPM. I was not the driver and I am relying on pofa failure as they worded in my Formal Demand "If within 28 days we have not received full payment or driver details, we have the right....." This is incorrect according to schedule 4 pofa guidelines. Is this strong enough to win?

The dtiver, who was the driver and a tenant, parked in an incorrect bay because there were no bays allocated to tenants available. My question is - Should I bring this up in my defence statement ?

I have completed the online AOS

nosferatu1001

It is ONE of the elements. If the vehicle had rights to be parked there anyway then you of course include that - there cannot be a contract if they have nothing to offer, if you already can have a vehicle parked they have nothing to offer.

You do realise that you MUST NOT identify the driver? It should be fairly obvious! EDIT YOUR POST, "the driver" was the driver. You are the keeper. never state who drove.

What is the incorrect bay?

The_Deep

I am not sure I should bring the tenancy into the picture because the driver knows he parked incorrectly as there were no valid bays available when he needed to park

Of course you should, the lease/AST is the sine qua non.

Whether the driver parked correctly or not is immaterial to a judge ,it is a matter for the MA, the headlease holder and the RA if there is one.

it depends on the wording of the lease/Ast whether he/she committed a breach of contract or not. If the PPC has obtained your details without cause from the DVLA you may consider counter claiming for a DPA breach, and/or harassment, courts have awarded up to £750 such behaviour. You might also like to con

This may well be a breach of the landlord's rights to peaceful enjoyment of your propert which, imo, you should be concentrating on, not faffing around with POFA and Beavis. Has Gladstonedmentioned Beavis in their lertter, if so you might like to refer the matter to the SRA, Beavis has nothing to do with residential patking.

http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.page

Please tell us in exact words what your lease/AST says about parking.

Read this.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

I am not sure that the driver's identity is of any importance here, indeed he would probably do better fighting this as the leasehold.

Lee1000

He had a permit which was allocated to him as a tenant to park in bays marked xxx. Apparently there were hardly ever any of these available so he parked in a bay marked yyy. He was ticketed and they have a picture of the permit in the windscreen which does not match the bay