Gladstone Claim form - help please

Coupon-mad

DEFENCE STATEMENT

DEFENCE

not 'statement'.

Please read some shorter ones and next (more concise) draft you show us, please turn off your Smart Punctuation, so you avoid the !!!8220; apostrophe glitch on this forum. We can't easily read your defence draft.

metalman1

Okay i have taken out some unnecessary bits and have shorten the draft to highlight key points.

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

DEFENCE!

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.!

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

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.

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 £168.60. 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.

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 £168.60. 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 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 was not visible where the vehicle was photographed, making it illegible and does not mention what restrictions apply to the section of the road. 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.

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 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.!

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

Name ; Signed - Date

Coupon-mad

Remove this, it is covered by the sentence starting 'therefore' later on:

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

Independent Parking Committee

Should be International Parking Community.

Remove all of this which is repetition of other points, talks about the UTCCRs that do not exist any more, and was placed right in the middle of your points about signage/the roadway/kerb:

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'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.

Remove this because you have it in the penultimate paragraph:

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.

Finally, as you say this in your OP:

I parked in a residential area for 10 minutes and when I come back to the car I saw a parking ticket.

...you need something in the defence about PCM being predatory and not allowing a reasonable grace period for the driver to fetch a permit, which it cannot be assumed was not happening in the mere minutes before PCM slapped a PCN on the car.

Like here in 13 and 14 of the defence shown in post #4

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73217459#Comment_73217459

This is a more concise defence with stuff about PCM being predatory:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73649063#Comment_73649063

metalman1

I have removed the points you highlighted and have added pcm being predarory. Here is thr uodated draft.
In the County Court
Claim Number: ******************
Between
Parking Control Management (UK) LIMITED v ************************

DEFENCE!

Background

1. 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.

2. 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.!

(a) 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

3. 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.

4. 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.!

5. 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.

(a) 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.

6. 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.!

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

8. The Claimant or the Claimant!!!8217;s representatives,!Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £168.60. 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.

(a) 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.

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

(a) 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")

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Even if the court is minded that a visitor must display a permit there must be a reasonable grace period time to allow the defendant to fetch a permit. Immediate ticketing or lack of a fair grace period is contrary to the IPC code of practice, being a predatory and unfair business practice.

13. Should the court be satisfied that there is a potential cause of action, there were no road markings or bays etc.; this is not a car park, just an unmarked dead-end street. It is trite law on-street (had this been Council highway, where the TMA2004 applies as well as the Highway Code) that no markings suggest no restrictions.!

14. 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 £168.60. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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.

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

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

(c) The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community ("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

(d) The signage was not visible where the vehicle was photographed, making it illegible and does not mention what restrictions apply to the section of the road. The Code of Practice of the International Parking Community ("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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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;

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

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

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

(c) 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

21. 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).

22. 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.

23. 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).

24. 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.

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

Name ; Signed - Date

metalman1

Oh and should i contact gladstone in any way? Maybe ask them to replead the case? Ive read somewhere that it may help my case later on in the process to atleast show ive tried to make contact. I have never contacted pcm or gladestone after all the letters i've ignored.

Coupon-mad

Oh and should i contact Gladstones in any way? Maybe ask them to replead the case?

No, IMHO you don't want them to put right a badly pleaded case, and they won't! You should only contact them if you want to see some evidence at the earliest opportunity, like all photos taken including the signage. But you had a chance to ask for that at LBCCC stage anyway.

I would remove all of this (waffle and repetition) to make the defence more concise:

(c) 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.

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

(c) 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

21. 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).

22. 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.

23. 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).

metalman1

Points 9. Has been removed and also the waffle/repitition you've quoted. To be honest with you i have no idea what i am doing and just cutting & pasting and altering a few bits and bobs to suit me. You said I have a badly pleaded case, would it just be better I offer £100 like previous poster The Deep has mentioned? Because if this does go to court I really dont believe in my self and have the courage to see through it and will probably end up paying.

Coupon-mad

No. Don't offer them money. Gladstones cases collapse very often due to the way they muck them up. And most posters here have no belief that they will win, but they DO!