Gladsones court date!

auditt

Ok so I followed some of the advice and now I have a date for the court case (two weeks time) for me to defend my CPM ticket on a disused piece of land last year.

Interestingly their witness statement comes from a girl on the CPM website as a legal admin staff at their head office Lancing, long way for her to travel? ha ha

Not sure if I going to win but hay I would rather at least have my say in court than just pay up to these low life people!

Trying on the poor signage, no lighting, IPC/Gladstones conflict of interest, wish me luck!!!

Coupon-mad

The Lancing address is close to my area and is just a maildrop. IMHO, UKCPM are not based in Sussex.

What did your defence say?

What did your WS say and with what attached evidence, that you've just filed in time, this month?

auditt

Happy Easter! Thanks for the reply.

Oh ok I was just going by their headed letter address, although its a PO box so yeah could be anywhere then!

My defence (yes sent off) is:

Defence Statement!!!8232;!!!8232;!!!8232;Preliminary Matters.!!!8232;!!!8232;1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the!!!8232;Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:!!!8232;1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the !!!8216;Creditor!!!8217; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner!!!8217;s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.!!!8232;
2.The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant!!!8217;s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.!!!8232;!!!8232;3. 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.!!!8232;!!!8232;4. The Defendant believes the terms 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. 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, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.!!!8232;!!!8232;5. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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.!!!8232;!!!8232;6. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. !!!8232;!!!8232;7. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.!!!8232;!!!8232;On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a!!!8232;cause of action. !!!8232;!!!8232;Statement of Defence!!!8232;!!!8232;I am Nikos Theodosiou, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons. !!!8232;!!!8232;1. The claimant has not provided enough details in the Particular of Claim to file a full defence.!!!8232;a) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.!!!8232;b) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge. Except for a !!!8216;breach of contract!!!8217;.!!!8232;c) There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair!!!8232;exchange of information.!!!8232;d) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St !!!8232;Albans County Court without a hearing due to their !!!8216;roboclaim!!!8217; particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and !!!8216;providing no facts that could!!!8232;give rise to any apparent claim in law.!!!8217;!!!8232;!!!8232;2. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.!!!8232;a) No initial information was sent to the Defendant for the following:!!!8232;(i) Full particulars of the parking charges.!!!8232;(ii) Who the party was that are contracted with UKCPM LTD!!!8232;(iii) The full legal identity of the landowner!!!8232;(iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UKCPM had their authority.!!!8232;(v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.!!!8232;(vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.!!!8232;(vii) To provide a copy of the signs that UKCPM can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all Photographs taken of the vehicle in question.!!!8232;b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.!!!8232;!!!8232;3. I have the reasonable belief that the Claimant does 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.!!!8232;a) 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.!!!8232;b) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question!!!8232;c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

I refer to Part B of the IPC code of conduct, 15 Grace Periods !!!8220;Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minuets to leave the site!!!8221; My stay on the site was 5.5 minuets less than 10 mins and I have seen no evidence from UK Car Parking Management Limited that I stayed longer than 10 mins despite asking them for evidence.!!!8232;!!!8232;4. No planning permission for signage, in addition the IPC code of conduct Part E Schedule 1 - Signage says !!!8220; Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and condition!!!8221; There was no reference to this signage. In addition, !!!8220;signs should be placed at the entrance to a site, otherwise the signage within the site must be such as to be obvious to the motorist!!!8221; There were no such signs obvious at the entrance and no signs whatsoever at the main side of the building, I refer to my enclosed pictures of the said site. Again IPC code of conduct part E schedule 1 says !!!8220;You should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge!!!8221; There is no illumination anywhere on the site, once again please refer to my enclosed pictures of the said site.

5. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist even if it did have planning permission.!!!8232;a) No sign upon entry to carpark, contravening requirement 18.2 of the BPA code of practice - enclosed pictures refer to this.!!!8232;b) Wording of signage unclear and contradicting.ie tells you you!!!8217;re not allowed to park without a permit, but gives no information of how or where to obtain one. Then goes to say if you do park you agree to their terms and risk a £100 charge, as such offering you a contract for something they!!!8217;re strictly forbidding in the first place. Also !!!8220;customer parking!!!8221; signs on the site to encourage you to park there.!!!8232;c) It is possible to drive into the carpark and park without seeing a sign at all due to the lack of signs and carpark layout, therefore in this instance it is imperative an entrance sign is in place to avoid any confusion.
d) IPC code of conduct Part E Schedule 1 - Signage says !!!8220;Repeater Signs -you are required to provide a sufficient number of signs on each site to commensurate with its size and other characteristics to ensure that any parking condition are adequately brought to the attention of the motorist!!!8221; There are no repeater signs whatsoever the side entrance to the building shows no signage at all, please see my enclosed picture showing this.
e) The Claimants signage states that !!!8220; a valid permit must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times!!!8221; but no information on how to obtain a permit are displayed.
f) The Claimants signage states that !!!8220;No parking outside of a designated area/parking bay!!!8221; there are no designated areas or parking bays indicated anywhere on the site, please see enclosed pictures.
In addition to IPC code of conduct Part E Schedule 1 - When ANPR is used or suggested to be used the signage should be clear and easily readable, the claimant shows a small sign in a back window saying that CCTV is in operation, this is not clear or in line with IPC code of conduct.

Data Protection Act breach For the reasons set out above, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper!!!8217;s details from the DVLA and to use them, and has breached the Defendant!!!8217;s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing both.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Coupon-mad

And your WS?

Your signed version of events and all your evidence, photos and case law, that you filed recently, in accordance with the court letter that told both sides to do so, before the hearing?

auditt

That letter above plus photo's of the site is everything I have sent.

Coupon-mad

No, it isn't. If it is, get your finger out and sort this for Tuesday morning!

You had a letter from the court giving you the court date. It told you the date by which both parties must file their WS and evidence, and the claimant has done that. You haven't. Why not?

You need to read the NEWBIES sticky thread post #2 about court processes. WS example there.

No asking for a link, you are looking at it every time you read my replies...see below.

auditt

oh ok thanks, I thought that was my WS?

Is my content and pictures not suitable?

Coupon-mad

Come back when you've read what you should have done, and NO, it isn't OK to ignore Court directions.

auditt

Thank you, I'm sorry but I am just a layman and not sure on what I am supposed to read?

I can't find the WS example.

Every time someone wins a case with these people its another nail in their coffin!

Coupon-mad

You need to read the NEWBIES sticky thread post #2 about court processes. WS example there.

No asking for a link, you are looking at it every time you read my replies...see below.

If you are reading this forum on a phone - DON'T.

System

As above - plus read about how to lay it out so the judge can read it.

Take out all the accusations that cannot be supported by evidence. These hide your winning facts and give the judge a green light to award against you.

a girl on the CPM website as a legal admin staff at their head office Lancing, long way for her to travel? ha ha

No she won't attend and they are unlikely to send a legal rep too. They've worked out that defendants make such a hash of this stage they don't need to, to get a win.

Note: Please refer to my sig.