Gladstones Claim Form

pokerish

Hi,

I have received a claim form from Gladstones Solicitors regarding a parking incident in October 2017. I have read the NEWBIES thread and will now give the details of the incident, and my current defence letter (I used a sample letter in one of the threads).

The details:
- Parked in "own space" in residential block
- Permit was half hidden by a tissue so was not fully visible
- The signage and the tenancy agreement states that permit should be visible
- A letter was sent to my home address with a parking fine
- I appealed this in October 2017 stating I have a valid permit, but this was rejected
- I told them I was the driver of the vehicle
- I have received a Claim form and have just completed the AOS

My letter:
DEFENCE

Background
1. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

2. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

3. It is accepted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
4. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle or the user of the vehicle.

5. The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

6. Accordingly it is denied that:
6.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant; and
6.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
7. In the alternative, 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.
7.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
7.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
7.1.3. 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
7.2. 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 ParkingEyedistinguished.

8. 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.

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

10. 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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

My concerns:
Will I have to pay the full amount stated on the letter if this appeal fails?
The amount they are claiming is the following
166.46 amount claimed
25 court fee
50 legal representative.

Thanks

KeithP

Have you done the Acknowledgement of Service - as pictorially described in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

What is the date of issue on your Claim Form?

The_Deep

Whatever the STA may say, it is the wording on the landlord's lease which matters. If it says that a permit is required, (it would be unusual), but it would may make it difficult for you to claim Primacy.

Does the AST state that you must pay £100 if the permit was not prominent? How about "peaceful enjoyment"?

In any case, a judge may consider this to be a trifle, and the law does not concern itself with trifles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Is this an allocated space, or on the landlord's deeds?

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

Will I have to pay the full amount stated on the letter if this appeal fails?

This isn't an appeal. Your defence doesn't get looked at by a Judge at this stage. Hope you realise you will have to attend a court hearing? Local to you, of course.

We do see 99% wins reported here, from posters who we fully coach throughout.

pokerish

Hello,

Thanks for the replies.

It is an allocated space that comes with an apartment that I rent.
The tenancy agreement does state I have to show my permit at all times.
I have done the AOS.
The date on the Claim form is 1st of June.

If I go to court, and lose, what will I have to pay?

Also, is my defence letter suitable to be posted?
I have until 21st June to submit it.

Thanks

KeithP

pokerish wrote: »

Hello,

Thanks for the replies.

It is an allocated space that comes with an apartment that I rent.
The tenancy agreement does state I have to show my permit at all times.
I have done the AOS.
The date on the Claim form is 1st of June.

If I go to court, and lose, what will I have to pay?

Also, is my defence letter suitable to be posted?
I have until 21st June to submit it.

Thanks

If the date of issue on your Claim Form is 1st June, then you have until 4pm on Wednesday 4th July to file your Defence.

Please do not consider posting your Defence.

Once you are satisfied with the content -
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'.

pokerish

Thanks.

Is this defence ready to be submitted on MCOL?

KeithP

pokerish wrote: »

Is this defence ready to be submitted on MCOL?

Did you read my post?

I'll re-phrase it: Do not file your Defence via MCOL.

The reason is well documented in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Coupon-mad

If I go to court, and lose, what will I have to pay?

Less than the claim, probably, because even if the Judge thinks the parking charge is legit, you can/must still object to the added 'indemnity/debt collector' costs that in fact have NEVER been incurred at all.

So people who just pay over £200 when they get a claim from a PPC, are either idiots, or have forgotten how to Google/research, or are your typical vulnerable victims.

Posters here are none of those.

pokerish

Thank you.

I have searched the thread, do you think there are any other cases which should be included in my defence?

thanks

Coupon-mad

Permit was half hidden by a tissue so was not fully visible

Jeez they get more and more desperate!

You need more and your case is a bit like this one, where the PPC took photos at an angle, to suggest the permit wasn't visible:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74460646#Comment_74460646

Crib from that one and add more to your draft, and show us the next version.