Court Claim - Few Questions before defence

pattar

Thanks Keith.

Update your Point 1

Removed your Point 2

Anything more to add or modify, please let me know

KeithP

pattar wrote: »

Claim issued - 01/06/2018
letter received on 04/06/2018.

So i think it is 28 days from 05/06/2018

Is this correct ?

If the Issue Date of the claim is 1st June 2018, and you have done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner then you have until 4pm on Wednesday 4th July 2018 to file your Defence.

pattar

I have done my acknowledgment asap on 6th June.

pattar

Can any one please check my final draft of the defense. Much appreciated. Thanks.

IN THE COUNTY COURT CASE No. BLAH BETWEEN
Parking and Property Management Ltd and
BLAH
________________________
DEFENCE
________________________

Preliminary -
1) The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and 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) The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.
2.2) The Defendant undertook to appeal the unwarranted parking charge in all good faith, in the hope of resolving the dispute. The Claimant responded to the appeal by mostly ignoring the points made and instead re-asserting the supposed breach of terms by the Defendant..
2.3) The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant!!!8217;s Trade Body, the International Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently (they have resigned since the Claimant!!!8217;s parking charge was issued). They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the Independent Appeals Service, an organisation with no scrutiny board and, evidently, no independence from the IPC or its members.
2.4) Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.

Defendant!!!8217;s Foreward -
3) The Defendant denies any amount is owed to the Claimant in relation to the incident described in the Particulars of Claim.
4) The Defendant contends he has not entered a contract with the Claimant and so cannot be in breach of any terms.
5) The Defendant denies 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, lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
6) The Defendant denies that Signage at Galena and Topaz Apartments were complaint with Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice as per below.

No Contract and No Breach
Forbidden Sign !!!8211;
7) The sign referenced by the Claimant cannot make a genuine contractual offer. In any event as a unilateral offer the sign cannot be seen as a representation of a meeting of minds, there was no genuine offer and the Claimant provided no consideration. The constituent elements of a contract were therefore absent and the Claimant has no case.

Difficult to Read Sign -
8) The Claimant issued Parking charge notice in the hours of darkness (21.44 PM ) with Images taken from camera with Flash and the area gets little light due to tall buildings and as per "Contrast and Illumination" of schedule 1 - if parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is other sufficient lighting. Hence claimant!!!8217;s sign fails to comply with "Contrast and Illumination" Section of the schedule 1 !!!8211; of the IPC Code of Practice.

Difficult to Find Sign -
9) The defendant also claims that there were no Repeater signs - As per schedule 1 of signage IPC COP !!!8211; In fact there are no signs at all to the right side of the road which clearly doesn't get the information to attention of the motorist.
10) No warning that charges might apply were given upon entering the site. On the date in question, there were no signs to one side of the road that a driver might see after leaving the car IF they exited walking one way. Given that there are many exits from this road it is unreasonable to assume that a driver would exit only one way and so see any signs.

Difficult to See any Sign on the date -
11) The claimant claimed that !!!8220;A series of images were taken showing the location of the vehicle in relation to the signs on site, but do not show my vehicles location in proximity to any signage. The defendant claims that there was no full terms and conditions signage at all to the one side of the road.
12) The defendant denies that signs were clear, Prominent and readable entering the road in as they are placed too high behind the government!!!8217;s legal road sign with small print and also under the tree with no light. The parking charge are hidden within the small print, it is not a clear and prominent charge. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract because Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practise of the Independent Parking Committee clearly states that !!!8220;Text should be of such a size and in a font, that can easily be read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.!!!8221;

Questioning the Audit Process in that Location -
13) The claimant also claims that Signage was has been audited by the Independent Parking Committee and Defendant would like to challenge the auditing process with exhibits showing the changing state of the signs in this particular location.
14) The defendant also claims that road works entering this road clearly obstructs any signs on the date in question.

Contract between Landowner and Parking Company never disclosed on request -
15) The claimant failed to send 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 Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says
15.1) 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.


Wholly Unreasonable and Vexatious Claim
16) 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).
17) It is the Defendant!!!8217;s belief 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.
18) The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant!!!8217;s solicitor, 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).
19) 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. The Court is also invited to consider reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/2016, where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing due to Gladstones!!!8217; template particulars for a private parking firm being !!!8216;incoherent!!!8217;, failing to comply with CPR 16.4, and !!!8216;!!!8216;providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law!!!8217;!!!8217;.
20) If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

I confirm the facts stated in this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge.


NAME
!!!8221;

pattar

Quick Question -

I started defense on MCOL online and deleted it and did not confirm or submit it.

Now i will submit it with below instructions but because is started it on MCOL - Will that create any issue ?

1) print your Defence
2) sign it
3) scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.

Thanks
Pattar.

Quentin

If you never submitted anything then no issue!

pattar

Hi Members,

I filed my defense on 2nd July and awaiting Directions Questionnaire.

Is there any timeline around when i will receive this as I am going on holiday in august for 3 weeks.

Regards
Pattar

Le_Kirk

pattar wrote: »

Is there any timeline around when i will receive this as I am going on holiday in august for 3 weeks.

Call the court maybe and ask? Do you know which court yet?

pattar

Northampton-county-court-business-centre.

nosferatu1001

As youve been told on pepipoo, try calling the court or more simply log onto MCOL to see if the DQ has been sent (which implies the claimabt has responded) and go from there.
Not sure why you want a gues shere when you can get a definite answer by calling the court, however.