Gladstone Claim form - help please

metalman1

New to the forums and really need help.

Back in 2017 I parked in a residential area for 10 minutes and when I come back to the car I saw a parking ticket. I went home and searched on Google whether I should pay or not and have read many post from different webs to ignore which I did. I kept on getting letters which increased the fine to £160 which I also kept ignoring. Eventually they all stopped. Fast forward today I received a claim form from pcm stating I must now pay £240 (amount claimed + court fee + legal rep costs)

This is where I'm stuck as I just don't know what to do!! It's my first car and first time going through something like this and I'm scared but don't want to pay.

I want to defend but don't know where to start as everything I have read seemed so hard for someone like me who didn't do so well in school. Should I go to moneyclaim website and complete a defence form? Where should I start and how should I go about defending this case, I don't know what to do .. I'm sorry if i sound so inexperienced I am a young driver and don't want to let my parents know about this as they will get scared and will probably tell me to pay up the price which I don't want to do as I have read many successful stories on this forum.

Any help appreciated !

Coupon-mad

Read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, take your time and also get someone else in the family (not parents) or a clever, calm friend to read it with you. It shows you in pictures how to do the acknowledgement of service (AOS) on MCOL - NOT the defence first, the AOS first, to extend your time to defend.

Come back once you have done that, and show us your draft defence, which can be based on the one written by one of our posters, Johnersh, who is also a solicitor. It's linked right there in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread as the best example of a residential defence.

You do need to do a defence - but AOS first, which extends the time to 28 days.

[Deleted User]

Do bear in mind that the aforementioned defence may need several changes if the parking event happened at someone else's car park, not your own one.

You may like to read the case linked below, if the latter applies.

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003981793-Pace-v-Lengyel-?mobile_site=true

Whichever, you're gonna have to do some reading to get to grips with the ticketing process, a spot of law and what the signs said. It's not super complicated, but can be time consuming

metalman1

Thank you Coupon-mad and Johnersh for the quick response. I just did the AOS which hopefully will buy me some time while I try my best to read through some defences and come up with my own. I will be back with a draft after I do some reading and research. I just checked google maps and there was a parking sign on a wall which I will have to go back and read. Again.. I appreciate the help.

Coupon-mad

I parked in a residential area for 10 minutes

Were you delivering or picking something up from a resident? Dropping a passenger off?

metalman1

I dropped my mother off but she is not a resident in the area. She went to visit a friend who owns a shop around 4 minutes down the road. I parked up to walk her there and slowly walked back hence why I said 10 minutes.

The parking sign wasn't clear enough for me to notice it and wasn't in my line of sight as I drove in. It was stuck to a wall on the drivers side, I drove past it and parked further down away from the sign (the only sign throughout the area)

I really don't know how I would beat this claim, as it seems I was at fault for not looking properly and thought it would be okay to park as I saw a van also park on the kerb.

Coupon-mad

I really don't know how I would beat this claim,

You haven't read enough threads then!

We really don't know how people lose them...we can count on one hand the cases lost as reported on this forum in the past year or two.

metalman1

I've stayed up all night reading through the forums. Would this be a good template to use? If you could help me to decide what to delete/add to it would be great .


In the County Court
Claim Number: ******************
Between
Parking Control Management (UK) LIMITED v ************************

DEFENCE!STATEMENT

Background

It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.


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 it's entirety.!


The Claimant!!!8217;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. I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.


Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) Ltd, and no proof has been provided.


In the pre court stage the Claimant!!!8217;s solicitor refused to provide me with all the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.


They did not send me 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 clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
A list of the relevant documents on which their client intends to rely.
How the !!!8220;charge amount!!!8221; of 160.00 pounds has been calculated and justified.
Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.!

As!Gladstones!are a firm of solicitors who!!!8217;s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the!Defence.

I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.!

The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant!!!8217;s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, location, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors and demands payment within 14 days. The claim also states "parking charge " which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way. Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim!defence!as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.!

It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.!

It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

The Claimant or the Claimant!!!8217;s representatives,!Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £160.00. I submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further,Gladstones!appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors!!!8217; Regulation Authority Code of Conduct by knowingly demanding more monies than they know they can recover.

Failure to be compliant with POFA 2012

It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.!

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")
Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
There was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, 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.

The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160.00. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

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.
The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) Ltd do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

The NTK!!!8217;s sent to the defendant do not contain the duration the vehicle is stated to have been parked, which POFA requires. Furthermore the two NTK!!!8217;s state different timings, 31 minutes apart, again demonstrating the claimants failure to comply with POFA schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a) which states that the NTK must !!!8220;specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates!!!8221;.

Failure to set out clear parking terms

The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary!defence!above, woefully inadequate.

At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, size, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;!

The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and

The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

The signage opposite the area where the vehicle was photographed is on the opposite side of the road, approximately 4 meters in above ground with very small writing, making it illegible and does not mention what restrictions apply to the section of the road with the double yellow markings. The Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory, states that !!!8220;Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign!!!8221;. The signage in the area does not meet this requirement.

The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.

No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.

The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.

Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.!

The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative!!!8217;s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the IPC Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
The signage does not mention the kerb, where the vehicle was photographed.
Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

In the case of PCM vs Bull, DJ Glenn dismissed a similar case, commenting on signage that forbids parking other than prescribed, stating !!!8220;it is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.!!!8221;

As PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) Ltd are not the landowners, merely an agent, and cannot pursue the defendant for trespass.

No Standing

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the 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 action regarding this claim.

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.

The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, even after being request under CPR 31.14, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.
As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this unreasonable and vexatious claim

It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors,!Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. 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.!

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.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Name xxx ; Signed xxx - Date xxx

System

I'd take out any complaints such as the one below and concentrate on the facts as you see them. Just a waste of time as it tends to hide the strong points which are buried in a rant.

In any case the claim is PCMs and not Gladstones. Gladstone (the theory goes) are only reflecting what they are told by their clients. Even though everyone knows the truth, a court will maintain the wording is PCM's

The Claimant!!!8217;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. I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

[Deleted User]

I'd take out any complaints such as the one below and concentrate on the facts as you see them. Just a waste of time as it tends to hide the strong points which are buried in a rant.

Cannot agree strongly enough. It's one of my irritations with some of the templates.

The fact is, the court applies the law and (for now at least) the PPC is permitted to bring a claim in the way they have. Better to do your defence and follow up with a later complaint or to your MP (The Deep posts regularly on how to do that).

The_Deep

Have I got this right, in order that your mother could shop nearby, you parked in a residential car park? Is it any wonder that Managing Agents employ PPCs to manage parking and residents, properly parked in their own spaces, get targeted?

If it was not for the fact that this company are ripping you off, I would say offer them £100 to go away. However, I detest PPCs more than I dislike trespassers so please act thusly, watch this video of the Second Reading of a Bill to rein in these scammers.

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.