Gladstones defence

abeltasman

Apologies - giving this a bump to see if there are any final thoughts before I send it off? All look OK?

abeltasman

Hi all.

I'm just trying to see if I've made a mess of the Jopson point and if you all think that the broader defence is OK to send off up above?

I'm just being cautious and want to make sure that I haven't left myself open / have the best defence possible.

Do I need to include the names of other case law and county court rulings that I intend to rely upon? Or can I just include them, when the time comes, in the bundle of documents and evidence that I send off?

Thanks so much.

abeltasman

Hi all - does this look OK? Especially the phrasing of the last point about Jopson?



Preliminary:

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity to the point where the Defendant is prejudiced and unable to prepare a full and complete Defence.

2. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to:

(a) Serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings; or

(b) Limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

3. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant pre-action protocols in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

4. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in meaningful pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

Background

5) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

6) It is denied 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 its entirety.

7) 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) It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material date while visiting a resident at XXXXX. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that can have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

Authority to operate

9) It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with members at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

10) Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

11) In the alternative, any agreement signed between the Claimant and the landowner must grant the Claimant the right to enter into a contract with the driver, not merely to issue charge notices. In accordance with the contra proferentem rule, any ambiguity must be interpreted against the Claimant.

The Signage - performance and no offer

13) It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage on the estate as the area was badly lit, lacking in contrast and poorly distributed and as such the Claimant was in breach of its own Code of Practice under the International Parking Community’s Accredited Operators Scheme.

14) It is denied that the Claimant fulfilled its requirements to erect suitable entrance signs and failed to deploy additional signage that was obvious to the motorist. The Defendant notes that the Claimant upgraded the signage on site two weeks after receiving the Defendant’s appeal.

15) It is denied that the Claimant’s signs constitute a fair or relevant contract. The terms and conditions of the sign, or the acceptance of a liability, are not synonymous with a contract.

16) In the alternative, any contract that was established was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance as the Defendant had no means of securing a valid parking permit. The terms and conditions of parking detailed on the Claimant's signs can only apply to those with the authority to park.

17) Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that a charge is unconscionable as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.

Stopping / parking distinction

18) The Defendant relies on Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E Appeal to draw a distinction between stopping and parking a vehicle. The parking bays used by the Defendant are regularly engaged by tradespeople and delivery vehicles when servicing the estate. As the Defendant had stopped to unload goods to a second floor flat at the far end of the XXXX building, the principle of stopping as outlined in Jopson V Homeguard applies.

System

Looks good to go. Reducing it to simple words

1. You were a lawful visitor and not a trespasser
2. The signs at that time were unclear and ambiguous. It was dark
3. You were stopped for the purpose of unloading
4. The bays were unmarked
5. Pace can offer no consideration as the consideration flows from the lease/tenancy agreement of the family member you were visiting. Pace's action interferes with their right to peaceful enjoyment which includes having visitors.

abeltasman

Thank you! Will let you know how it goes.

abeltasman

It looks like I have some good news! I received a 'General Form of Judgment or Order' following the allocation of this case to my local county court. It says:

"Before DJ JHugman at the County Court at Wandsworth....

It is ordered that the claimant has not identified any legal entitlement to bring the claim which is accordingly struck out'

Does that mean there's nothing Ace Security Services can do from here?

And was it struck out because the DJ agreed with the assertion that the claimant hadn't specified a basis for action?

Umkomaas

Does that mean there's nothing Ace Security Services can do from here?

Can't see any way back for them. Anything further could result in a harassment claim from you. Come back if there's any more hassle from this bunch of chancers.

I'm not the one to advise, but others might comment on your opportunity to claim costs against them.

abeltasman

Thank you Umkomaas.

And thanks to everyone for their help on here. This forum is such a great resource.

The_Deep

They have wasted your time, now waste theirs.

Send them a letter before action, there are plenty of examples on the internet, and you do not have to follow through if you do not want to, you probably do not have a case, but do it anyway. The very fact that you have sent one means that they have to devote resources to dealing with it.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

beamerguy

abeltasman wrote: »

It looks like I have some good news! I received a 'General Form of Judgment or Order' following the allocation of this case to my local county court. It says:

"Before DJ JHugman at the County Court at Wandsworth....

It is ordered that the claimant has not identified any legal entitlement to bring the claim which is accordingly struck out'

Does that mean there's nothing Ace Security Services can do from here?

And was it struck out because the DJ agreed with the assertion that the claimant hadn't specified a basis for action?

The comment I would make is that the judge clearly did
the right thing and understood the scam.

Ace like many of the scam cowboys have very little options
but to use cheapo and incompetent legals such as
Gladstones Solicitors .
Fortunately, there is a very small number of these types
of dodgy legals who dare to dip their toes in this dirty scam.

REAL solicitors would not touch this scam and face
being whooped in court as the low rent legals do ?

Ace cannot really go any further, you have your judgement
and ACE / Gladstones lost:rotfl::rotfl: