Late for replying to Claim Form

DefiantNewbie

ok , I am a little nervous if I make silly errors

I have removed those fields, also the one about letters I received letters from them before. Just wanted to confirm do I remove Gladstone Solicitors Limited v from that part ?

I edited again

Coupon-mad

Show us what you have, the new draft. That's what we are here for, to help you get it right.

Obviously the heading has the name of the claimant (the PPC) and name of defendant (you). Think about it, the Claimant is NOT Gladstones, nor is a there a firm called 'EuroParks'. Is there?

So, who is the claimant?

Redx

the claimant is the name of the actual parking company , vs yourself

this should be on the claim form you were sent

gladrags are their solicitors , their legal representatives

edit it as people are telling you first, then add anything else that is required or relevant

KeithP

DefiantNewbie wrote: »

Just wanted to confirm do I remove Gladstone Solicitors Limited v from that part ?

You replace Gladstone Solicitors Limited with the name of the Claimant. The claimant is the real name of the company you have called 'EuroParks'.

Quentin

DefiantNewbie wrote: »

.... 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 .........
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, .......

Your OP is a little confusing. If you did an AOS then you get 28 days to submit the defence.

Did you do the AOS within the first 14 days from service of the claim?

DefiantNewbie

no I did the AOS today, I only received yesterday as I changed address so I was well over the 14 days

DefiantNewbie

Thanks guys I really appreciate the quick support here is an updated versions with the claimant name as on the Claim Form, I also update the numbering .

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

EURO PARKING SERVICES 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.


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) 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.

b) 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

Coupon-mad

I only received yesterday as I changed address

In that case, you DO need to tell Gladstones your new address, and the court.

So you need to state that:

the Defendant no longer resides at the address used for service of the claim, and that all future communications must be addressed to:

NEW ADDRESS

and that needs to be near the top, point #1.

And I still see nothing at all that covers the real issues, like I said earlier:

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 (YOU must Google & read, to apply it).

Quentin

DefiantNewbie wrote: »

no I did the AOS today, I only received yesterday as I changed address so I was well over the 14 days

If the claimant is on the ball then they may have already requested judgement - so get your defence in ASAP, don't think you have the full 28 days - if it arrives before they request judgement then the case will proceed, but if they have already requested it then you will have a ccj on record

DefiantNewbie

Here I have updated with what happened the day:#


In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED v _________

Defence

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

The Defendant no longer resides at the address used for service of the claim, and that all future communications must be addressed to: ____________________________


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


1. The PCN was issued hastily. In breach of CoP guidelines the driver was not allowed a sufficient amount of time in order to park and read any signs in order that they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site before the enforcement action was taken.
2.As soon as the driver read signs and locate the correct change in their pocket, the driver did buy a parking ticket that covered the entire day and has the receipts.
3. 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.


4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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) 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.!

10. 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.

11. 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