LBCCC - Gladstones Solicitors

Chimichanga

That's great everyone thank you.

Alastair_Brown

if Gladstones want money let them seek court assistance. Don't worry about it.
Alastair

Chimichanga

Thank you Alastair Brown.

Since the second letter requesting all items which G's will be relying on in court everything has fallen silent. It's been approx 6 weeks since the last letter was sent to them.

Is there anything we can do at this point to make this go away or do we just have to sit tight and wait for Gladys to decide what they're doing?

Have been cautiously prepping defence whilst waiting.....

beamerguy

Chimichanga wrote: »

Thank you Alastair Brown.

Since the second letter requesting all items which G's will be relying on in court everything has fallen silent. It's been approx 6 weeks since the last letter was sent to them.

Is there anything we can do at this point to make this go away or do we just have to sit tight and wait for Gladys to decide what they're doing?

Have been cautiously prepping defence whilst waiting.....

You just wait ....

"Gladys to decide what they're doing?"

Not sure Gladstones know what they are doing
at the best of times .... it's all very mickey mouse stuff

nosferatu1001

Respond to them stating that, as they have failed to follow the PAP and delivered all documents within 30 days, you now consider the matter closed

As such you require them to cease proicessing your data within 21 days, except to deal with this request, and to confirm such.

Chimichanga

Ok will draft a letter today.

Thank you nosferatu1001 and beamerguy.

Chimichanga

Good morning all!

Well a not so good morning here unfortunately. It may have been a pipe dream, but i'd silently hoped that G's would drop this....how foolish to think that I hear you say, lol.

Today a claim form was received.....grrrr......the MCOL will be sorted today.

Once I have drafted the defence is it ok for me to post it on here for a quick once over by someone with a tad more experience than myself?

Having researched all of the various defence drafts on the forum, I'm struggling to decipher what I need to include in this defence. As far as I can see the relevant points to this particular claim (registered keeper was not the driver of the vehicle) are that this is a serial litigant of robo claims and that the registered keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver - NtK does not meet POFA. Do any other points really need to be included in the defence? eg the signage, the correct fee not being paid etc? If the keeper was not in fact the driver are any of the points valid in the defence?

Want to make sure this draft is a completely relevant defence and does look more like we're taking a shot in the dark and hoping something will stick.

Any help is much appreciated, thanks so much!

Coupon-mad

Yes we prefer to help review all defences. Many hands make light work!

Chimichanga

Ok so I have tried to keep this as relevant to this particular situation as possible.

I'm unsure as to whether other points (signage, landowner contracts etc) are relevant in this case? As such have limited the defence points to POFA not being met and PAP not being met. Please advise if i'm completely off track here.

DEFENCE:

I am XXXXXX, the defendant in this matter. I currently reside at XXXXXX. I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle XXXXX

1. It is denied that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle on 25/11/2017. The claimant is put to strict proof.
1.1 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").
1.2 Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
1.2.1. There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
1.2.2. That the Claimant has not followed the required wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is put that the Claimant has not complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
1.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, 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.
2. 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 £100 to £240.76. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
2.1 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. In this instance that amount is £100.
3. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
4. The Claimant is in breach of it's pre action obligations as set out in the Practice Direction. No information or documents have been provided to the Defendant despite requests from the Defendant on two separate occasions.
5. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons.
5.1 HMCS 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. These types of ‘roboclaims’ go against public interest, demonstrats a disregard for the dignity of the court and are unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute. A significant detriment to an unrepresented Defendant.
5.2 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.
6. 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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

Your thought/feedback is much appreciated.

KeithP

Don't forget to do the Acknowledgement of Service sometime this week. No rush, but must be done within 19 days of the date of issue on the Claim Form to give you an extra 14 days to file a Defence.