County Court Claim "Gladstones"

Azazel

Hello,
I received from the County Court Northampton a letter "Claim Form". I have received letters from Gladstone Solicitors before, I don't know how many and I put it in the bin. I read the "small claim" thread and I tailor-made my defence:
" As far as I remember, I parked on the street where there was no sign, there were many cars parked but I do not remember being a private road. I have not crossed any barrier and I did not park on anyone's place"
-Can somebody help to some advice in connection with my defense?
-I don't know what this numbers representing: "The Claimant!!!8217; is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; ???


1. It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. From the limited information provided by the particulars of claim, it can be seen the date of the alleged incident is XX/XX/2012 which predates the enactment of PoFA 2012. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable, only the driver, of which no evidence has been produced. This distinguishes the case from Elliot vs Loake, in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity. Further, Elliot v Loake was a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, as Elliot was prosecuted for S.172, which cannot apply here.
PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015).

3. 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, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.
The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" 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.

4. 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.
HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
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.

6. 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.

7. 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.


9. 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:
a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
c) 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.
d) 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.
e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

10. 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 matter.

11. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Le_Kirk

I don't know what this numbers representing: "The Claimant!!!8217; is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; ???

This is because whoever posted that bit of text used Smart Punctuation on an IPhone or other Apple device.

Coupon-mad

Remove the address, no need:

residing at xxx

This below, should be a point in itself, not hidden under #2:

This distinguishes the case from Elliot vs Loake, in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity. Further, Elliot v Loake was a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter, as Elliot was prosecuted for S.172, which cannot apply here.
PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no !!!8216;reasonable presumption!!!8217; in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015).

You will have to change the smart punctuation glitch back to apostrophes, one by one.

Which PPC is trying a pre-POFA claim via Gladstones then? Rare to see except from VCS/Excel using BW Legal. Not the norm for Gladstones. So which PPC?

The_Deep

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.

Azazel

Hello and thank you for your advice!
Claimant its the Parking Control Management(UK) Limited, they issued the ticket and put it on the windscreen

Castle

I'd suggest you amend your first post as it seems to identify the driver.

Coupon-mad

Hope you have searched the forum and read loads of other PCM claim threads! LOL!

Azazel

I read some of them, but I didn't find a good source for my defence. My defence it's not good?question:

nosferatu1001

EDIT YOUR PSOT
Stop telling the whole world who drove

Call them "the driver"

Newbies thread, post 2, deals with how to lay out and perform defences.

Azazel

Hello, My defence is based on these two Irrelevant Defences. What are the chances I can win the process and what I have to do next?


1) Not the Driver: The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) gave PPCs the ability to pursue vehicle keepers if the driver's indentity is not known. In order to do so, their paperwork must comply with the strict wording of that legislation. If it does, then it doesn't matter whether you were driving or not, they can claim against you. If it does not (and you need to go through it with a fine toothcomb) AND you can show that you weren't driving, you can argue that they have no basis for keeper liability, and can only pursue the driver.

2) I didn't see the signs: Unless you can demonstrate, with evidence, that the signage in the car park was obscured, printed in a tiny font, high up on poles or otherwise unreadable, this is a rubbish argument. The signs are there to be seen, and you should have seen them.

Azazel

This is my defence:



DEFENCE

1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured at that date with XXXX Insurance with X of named drivers permitted to use it.

3. It is possible that on XXXX/XXXX the Defendant's vehicle was parked at XXXXXXX.

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

5.1. 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 Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 POFA
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a relevant obligation either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. 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.

5.3. 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.

6. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis 2015, UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of 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.
6.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
6.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
6.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee, Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
6.1.3. 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.
6.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

7. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

8. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

9. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum if awarded, but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.