Late for replying to Claim Form

DefiantNewbie

hi all,
I am new here and I have spend last 4 hours reading the forum. basically here my situation.
on 16 May 2017 my car was parked in a carpark managed by EuroParks, the driver realized they didnt have change so they went to get change and when they came back bought a day worth of parking , continued parking and in the evening they saw the Parking notice charge on my car. now fast forward I received a Claim Form GLADSTONES solicitors dated 12/03/2018 from County Court Business Centre. I read around here I should respond within 14 days but it is more than 14 days and it is almost 27 days since issue date. what is my best course of action ?

They are asking for claim £169.44
Court fee £25
Legal Representative costs £50
Total £244.44

I was able to respond online MoneyClaim website to fill AOS but it said the claimant can request a decision if I passed the allowed date, please advise and sorry if I missed reading a relevant post (direct me please).
I have the original receipt where I paid for a whole day parking

Redx

you need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum , draft a defence and email a signed and dated copy as a pdf ASAP to the CCBC email address

time is of the essence here

doing the AOS within 14 days doubles the time to 28 days to get said defence in

so I would be emailing it ASAP to the CCBC and hope they dont have a judgment against you

KeithP

You need to edit your opening post to remove all clues to the driver's identity.

For example, your second sentence should perhaps start something like:

On 16 May 2017 my car was parked in a car park managed by EuroParks...

You need to review and adjust the rest of your post similarly.

There is no place for the word 'I' when describing events on the day.

It was the driver who parked.
It was the keeper who received the Claim Form.
Etc.

DefiantNewbie

Redx wrote: »

you need to read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum , draft a defence and email a signed and dated copy as a pdf ASAP to the CCBC email address

time is of the essence here

doing the AOS within 14 days doubles the time to 28 days to get said defence in

so I would be emailing it ASAP to the CCBC and hope they dont have a judgment against you

Thanks REDX for you quick reply,
When writing defence do I use a long version of the defence or just mention the facts of that day and that there was a full day parking? or I need to quote some other articles and points as well as in some templates
when you say signed do I have to print sign then scan again and send in an email or just I write my name and date on the electronic PDF file?

Thanks

Redx

your last post means you did not learn the lesson about only using THE KEEPER and THE DRIVER, the words " ME , MYSELF & I" should not be used (too easy to trip yourself up)

the Witness Statement comes much later in the process, as does the evidence like the parking ticket that was obtained on the day BY THE DRIVER

for now its legal arguments why the KEEPER is not liable for the court claim, this is called a DEFENCE

you should find something useful from the examples in post #2 and copy into word and adapt it

when its complete, it is printed , SIGNED & DATED and then scanned back to laptop or pc , back into word, saved as a pdf and emailed as an attachment

an unsigned and undated submission will be rejected

even the forms you have will have a place where you sign and date the form that is returned

the form you print could have both a printed name and date and then SIGNED name and DATE as well, too much is better than not enough

Coupon-mad

they went to get change

OMH, you cannot park in a car park and then leave to get change!

You can't even do that in a Council car park or on-street, you will get a PCN, there is never an allowance to 'get change'. No idea why people think that is OK, it never has been.

That said, this PCN is to be defended, of course. Look at other defences on several threads.

DefiantNewbie wrote: »

Thanks REDX for you quick reply,
When writing defence do I use a long version of the defence or just mention the facts of that day and that there was a full day parking? or I need to quote some other articles and points as well as in some templates
when you say signed do I have to print sign then scan again and send in an email or just I write my name and date on the electronic PDF file?

You copy a similar defence, in the third person, set out the way you see on other threads. Don't write your own version of events, that comes at WS stage.

Of course you must sign and date the defence (not electronic signature).

Show us your draft and get it in on Monday before noon, by email to the CCBCAQ email address.

DefiantNewbie

Thanks again,

I have chosen this template and changed the name of claimant, will defendant before I print

sorry dumb question, I see some numbers like this (Claimant!!!821) and !!!8220 !!!8221;. are these numbers just computer formatting gone wrong or they represent something and I should leave them in the document?


In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Limited v _________

Defence

I am ____, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle _______.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:


1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

a) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

b) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

c) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

d) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

e) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

f) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

2. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict keeper liability provisions.

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £244.44 for outstanding debt and damages.

3. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representative (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

5. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) 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.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

6. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

7. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.!

8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

9. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 12th march 2018.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

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

Signed
Date

Redx

those number errors and gobbledegook are punctuation errors on this forum and can be caused by apple devices using SMART PUNCTUATION

they are for apostrophes and some emojis etc, so should not be there

I suggest you edit your last post accordingly, using the EDIT button below it

The_Deep

CM is a bit of a doom merchant here

£240+ is a bit steep when you paid for parking. Popla will side with the PPC, but a judge might struggle to believe that they are entitled to this eye-watering amount. He might even think that they were trying to scam you. He would be right imo.

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 they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

Remove this, of course a firm of solicitors can sign as Gladstones Solicitors:

[STRIKE]1. The Claim Form issued on the ____ by Gladstones Solicitors Limited was not
correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by Gladstones Solicitors Limited (Legal Representative).[/STRIKE]

Between:

[STRIKE]Gladstones Solicitors[/STRIKE] Limited v ___

Defence [STRIKE]Statement[/STRIKE]

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle[STRIKE] ___. I currently reside at[/STRIKE].

Gladstones are obviously NOT the claimant!

Nor are they called 'EuroParks' so don't call them that either.

You do not put your address.

Why do people keep putting 'DEFENCE STATEMENT' instead of DEFENCE? Where was this example? I can't stand this bit and I want to remove the example you found, so were was it?:

[STRIKE]f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.[/STRIKE]

Remove the above and remove this as well:

[STRIKE]a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant[/STRIKE]

a) There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction

Are you sure? G's will have sent you a LBC first. Why copy stuff that is not true?

More to the point, there is nothing in your defence that tells the Judge what happened, or that the PCN was applied during the grace period when the driver was reading the signs and searching his/her pockets for the right change (DO NOT SAY 'gone for change').

You must have something that talks about the situation but says the PCN was applied too hastily, in breach of the Grace Period in the IPC Code of Practice (that YOU must Google & read, to apply it).

KeithP

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why do people keep putting 'DEFENCE STATEMENT' instead of DEFENCE?

Perhaps we have a lot of criminals visiting here.

My understanding is that in criminal cases the term 'Defence Statement' is commonly used.

There's even a .gov.uk form for it - see here.