Court Claim received from Gladstone on behalf of PACE Recovery

KeithP

Did you check with the court that they are sending stuff to the correct address?

You need to file and serve your WS and evidence PDQ.

You have known for months that this was coming.
Post your WS here later today for comment.

Enrique123

Thanks KeithP - I shall post a draft WS today.

In relation to evidence, what (if anything) is recommended?

Ps. What is PDQ?

KeithP

Stick PDQ into google.

Enrique123

Do I need to send the court the case details referenced as evidence?

I haven't received a copy of the contract between PACE and the landowner, however I intend to request this (any templates around this?) - should this be sent to the court as evidence? Also I assume that pictures of signage must be along with evidence?

Enrique123

Also - as I am not the freeholder, but was staying at my brother's property, do I need to send the court evidence that I had permission to stay? and a copy of his freehold? or is it sufficient to explain this in court?

Enrique123

Witness statement below - please review and comment
I, XXXXX, of XXXXXXXX, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked AB1 to which I will refer.

Before I describe why account, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
a. I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking
b. The Claimant's signage does not make it clear what constitutes a "valid permit"
c. The Claimant's signage does not identify the claimant as the "creditor" as per it is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association

The car park in question is a Council owned car park (I believe) and managed by the Claimant. The carpark is used by residents of the area and requires a permit, however the council also provides visitors permits which are filled in pen and valid for 24hrs. Each permit has 12 spots for a total of 12x 24 hour stays.

I am not a resident myself, however from September through to January last year, I stayed at my brother's place, who is a resident and provided me with a visitor's parking permit, which i filled in and placed on my dashboard for every occasion I left my car in the carpark. I had stayed at my brother's place during this time, as I was in the middle of a break-up with my partner and had nowhere to stay - I was essentially homeless. It was a very tough and stressful time for me going through a breakup, being seperated from my young son and having to crash in my brother's front room for nearly 6 months.

The first claim was issued in Oct and on this occasion i had forgotten to fill the permit, even though it was placed on my dashboard and also completed the previous day. The claim was issued at 6 in the morning, however I had left my car the night before and being very tired and also going through a lot of stress it had slipped my mind.

The second claim was issued at the end of Nov, however my permit was filled in. When I contacted the Claimant at a later date, they indicated that the date was overwritten by myself. This is definitely not the case and I did not overwrite the dates. There is a darker mark on the date here as my pen did not mark well the first time and had to make the date clearer. In any case, the signage only indicates that a "valid permit" is displayed and no mention that clerical errors invalidate my permit. The reasoning for the third claim is the same as the first.

I have considered the Code of Practice ("CoP") of the Independent Parking Committee ("IPC"), of which the Claimant is an accredited member. A copy of the CoP, which relates to making clear that the member must state it is the "creditor" within it's signage, is at page XXX of AB1. In order to be an accredited member of the BPA, compliance with the CoP is compulsory, and a copy of paragraphs 4.5 through to 10 and schedule 1 of the CoP is at page XXX of AB1.

in the case of the second claim, where my permit has been filled in, but the Claimant had indicated that I have overwritten the date, despite explaining that my pen did not mark well, this was not accepted by the Claimant's Legal representation, who have inferred that I have been dishonest. In any case, I would consider this at the minimum very predatory behaviour, making an opportunistic claim and at worst a fraudulent claim. Predatory tactics are non-compliant with the Claimant's CoP, per per schedule 2 of the CoP at page XXX of AB1.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature of Defendant:


Name:
Date:

Coupon-mad

The Claimant's signage does not make it clear what constitutes a "valid permit"

I'd be saying more about the signs.

Surely they are incapable of forming a contract with 'unauthorised' drivers?

Surely the penalty sum is is tiny lettering hidden in small print and you never agree to pay £100 because this was not brought to your attention clearly and unequivocally, as required under the well known Red Hand Rule...

You need to read WS that mention PCM v Bull and PACE v Lengyel, I'd say.

Search the forum for those surnames. I think you will need to adduce those transcripts. And a Witness Statement from your brother to support your case, saying NOT that you were 'crashing at his place' but going on about how predatory the parking firm were, that he knows of complaints (if true) or they were kicked out by the landowner for operating unfairly (if true?) or that the parking firm are still there and making residents lives a misery?

...and that they are causing a 'private nuisance' to residents and visitors alike, riding roughshod over his primacy of contract and the easements and rights of way/right to park that he has, and that he can pass to his visitors. He should confirm that you were certainly not 'unauthorised' and that he has rights & easements in his tenancy (or leasehold title, if he owns it?) and attach a copy as evidence, to his WS (as long as the wording doesn't talk about permits).

Can your brother also attend the hearing with you? Do ask, or any WS from him could be disregarded or carry less weight (just hearsay!).

I would never, ever make an admission like this - pretty much handing the money to the scumbags:

The first claim was issued in Oct and on this occasion i had forgotten to fill the permit, even though it was placed on my dashboard and also completed the previous day. The claim was issued at 6 in the morning, however I had left my car the night before and being very tired and also going through a lot of stress it had slipped my mind.

Let THEM prove it!

No rolling over like that, no need to make their case for them, especially as you have opted to defend IN FULL. Not admit!

...and it was not a 'claim' in October....you mean a PCN in October 2017? You need to be clear to the Judge what you are saying.

Enrique123

unfortunately the "charge of £100" is the only thing large and clear enough to see on the sign, so can't use that

Enrique123

having read this transcript for PACE v Lengyell, this is perfect as the signage is identical to the signage where I parked and the judge has indicated that the signage has not formed a contract

Enrique123

Updated witness statement

---

Witness Statement

---

I, XXXXX, of XXXXXXXX, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked AB1 to which I will refer.

Before I describe why account, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
a. I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking
b. The Claimant's signage does not make it clear what constitutes a "valid permit"
c. The Claimant's signage does not indicate that a contract is being entered into
c. The Claimant's signage does not identify the claimant as the "creditor" as per it is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association

The car park in question is a Council owned car park (I believe) and managed by the Claimant. The carpark is used by residents of the area and requires a permit, however the council also provides visitors permits which are filled in pen and valid for 24hrs. Each permit has 12 spots for a total of 12x 24 hour stays.

I am not a resident myself, however from September through to January last year, I stayed at my brother's place, who is a resident and provided me with a visitor's parking permit, which i filled in and placed on my dashboard for every occasion I left my car in the carpark. I had stayed at my brother's place during this time, as I was in the middle of a break-up with my partner and had nowhere to stay - I was essentially homeless. It was a very tough and stressful time for me going through a breakup, being seperated from my young son and having to stay in my brother's front room for nearly 6 months. The Claimant issued three PCNs (in Oct, with the second at the end of November and the third in January).

I have considered the Code of Practice ("CoP") of the Independent Parking Committee ("IPC"), of which the Claimant is an accredited member. A copy of the CoP, which relates to making clear that the member must state it is the "creditor" within it's signage, is at page XXX of AB1. In order to be an accredited member of the BPA, compliance with the CoP is compulsory, and a copy of paragraphs 4.5 through to 10 and schedule 1 of the CoP is at page XXX of AB1.

In the case of the second claim, where my permit has been filled in, but the Claimant had indicated that I have overwritten the date. This is definitely not the case and I did not overwrite the dates. There is a darker mark on the date here as my pen did not mark well the first time and had to make the date clearer, however despite explaining this, this was not accepted by the Claimant's Legal representation, who have inferred that I have been dishonest. In any case, I would consider this at the minimum very predatory behaviour, making an opportunistic claim and at worst a fraudulent claim. Predatory tactics are non-compliant with the Claimant's CoP, per schedule 2 of the CoP at page XXX of AB1. Furthermore, the signage only indicates that a "valid permit" is displayed and no mention that clerical errors invalidate my permit. Furthermore, the signage does not distinguish between a resident's permit and a visitor permit. It is unclear from the signage what a valid permit for a visitor is, for example, a permit could be placed on a car dashboard without a date and the wording does not indicate this is not valid.

In relation to the signs in the car park, the signs were of a small font and the text/characters and do not adhere to Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the International Parking Community (of which ES is a member), clearly states that Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign. (PROVIDE EXHIBIT EVIDENCE). In addition, the signage does not indicate that a contract is being entered into, the sign merely states that the Claimant issues a "Charge of £100". In fact the words "contract" and "agreement" do not appear anywhere on the sign, as was the case in PACE v Lengyel, a copy at page XXX of AB2.

The sign states that the "site is managed and operated" by the Claimant, however 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 Associations Code of Practice B1.1. 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 Creditor 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 landowners 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. (PROVIDE EXHIBIT EVIDENCE)

I would like to point out that as this car park does not offer a free parking period the ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley case does not apply (ParkingEye v Cargius case)

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature of Defendant:


Name:
Date: