court claim received gladstone

KeithP

jollyroger10 wrote: »

I am on day 12 since the date of issue on court claim so hopefully got time to get this info. I did the AOS so still got awhile wanted to send it by end of next week.

Having done the AoS, you have 33 days from the Claim Form Date of Issue to get your Defence filed.

So you still have three weeks to do that.

jollyroger10

Yes iv read it!!!8217;s 33 days realistically in a few threads but to go by the 28 to be safe.

I!!!8217;m a bit of a worrier so just want to send it in plenty of time but getting the correct land information could really help this defence so it!!!8217;s worth waiting out for.

Thank you I think I will calm down a bit like you say that!!!8217;s still 3 weeks!!

KeithP

jollyroger10 wrote: »

Yes I've read it's 33 days realistically in a few threads but to go by the 28 to be safe.

No, that 28/33 days thing that you have read about is to do with PoPLA appeal deadlines.

But a Court claim form, or more correctly the Particulars of Claim, are deemed served five days after the date of issue.
So having done the AoS you have 28 days from the Date of Service of the Claim, i.e. 33 days from the date of issue of the claim.

I understand you might want get it out of the way, but do you want to give the claimant even more time to consider your submission?

System

The explanation within the HA reply is useful in that it shows a) there is a wider/larger estate and b) control is spread over more than one agent.

This points again to the suggestion by CM that "confusion" is your best argument. To be able to manage multiple owners' rules (via a PPC) on a large estate requires both clear signs and clear demarcation. So you argument is that the PPC failed to convey their particular restrictions on their specific section of the wider estate.

At the Witness Statement stage, the PPC's will produce a sitemap with lots of crosses on it to suggest there were more signs there than there actually were. You can either wait for that or you can do you own to show the lack of signs where they say they were - hence your confusion

Coupon-mad

I've never thought about doing your own sitemap, IamEmanresu.

I think that's a good idea as standard evidence in most claims. I must add it to the NEWBIES thread under the section about WS/typical evidence. It would be a very useful accompaniment to a set of photos or a video of the lack of signage.

People should use Google Street aerial View, and get another resident (or retail shop worker, if retail site) to counter-sign & date it as a 'true copy' which would carry at least as much weight as a typical undated/unsigned one from a PPC.

jollyroger10

Thanks everyone I!!!8217;m going to working on my defence this week and will be now basing it on the confusion of the parking and failure to convey there particular restrictions on there specific section on the wider part of the estate.

Would you still suggest emailing and asking for site boundary map and what constitutes as the wider estate? Obviously if the answer is not on HA land then I will rely on the failure to show this in there signage.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Would you still suggest emailing and asking for site boundary map and what constitutes as the wider estate? Obviously if the answer is not on HA land then I will rely on the failure to show this in there signage.

Emailing the HA, yes.

jollyroger10

Hello there iv prepared my defence as follows, any advice or what you think of it is greatly appreciated. i have been following others drafts and put together the following:


The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any amount at all.

Preliminary

1. The Claimant 'UKCPM' has failed to comply with the requirements of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. Its sparse Particulars do not disclose any cause of action which could give rise to a claim, and their single-page Letter Before Claim was no more than an aggressive demand, designed to intimidate and mislead the defendant, rather than narrow the issues or provide any specific detail.

2. Despite the Defendant requesting this information in pre-action communication, this Claimant has failed to set out the basis of the claim nor has it been specified how the sum sought represents any fee, charge, costs or damages incurred - nor evidenced that any contract existed or was breached

3. The Claimant's solicitors merely sent a photograph of the car and a very small sign raised high and ineligible to read from where the drivers seated.

4. The Particulars of Claim (POC) fail to meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5. The POC are incoherent, make no sense, and do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the Defendant.

5. The POC contain no facts and are not clear and concise as required by CPR 16.4 (a). The Claimants are serial issuers of generic claims like this 'roboclaims given away in this case by typical, generic lack of detail. The Claimant cannot say if it is pursuing the Defendant as keeper or driver, and has not elaborated on the alleged 'breach of terms'. The Claimant claims an unsubstantiated £254.94 for ''Parking Charges/Damages'' despite the fact parking charges cannot be claimed as damages except by a landowner as a remedy for trespass, and cites ''indemnity costs if applicable'' whatever that is supposed to mean, bearing in mind the Claimant previously alleged this was about a single £100 charge.

6. Practice Direction 3A refering Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this:
The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
- those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, or what the particular !!!8216;parking terms breached!!!8217; actually are.
- those which are incoherent and make no sense,
- those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.'
cover all possibilities, with no fair opportunity to make an informed response.


Authority to park and failure to specify controlled areas within a residential estate.

1. It is admitted that at all material times the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle with vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Direct Line with 2 named drivers permitted to use it. The defendant was also the tenant of a flat in the development of XXXXXX.

2. It is admitted that on XX October 2016 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ADDRESS.

3. The defendant!!!8217;s tenancy agreement states nothing about consequences of miss parking in the development.

4. Section 3.44 of !!!8216;Vehicles and Parking!!!8217; within the defendants tenancy agreement states "You may use designated parking spaces on our land when parking your vehicle." UKPCM fail to provide signage or communication to tenants to inform tenants where the land they manage falls within the residential estate.

5.The Housing association the defendant has a tenancy with have acknowledged
a) There is a wider/larger estate and b) control is spread over more than one agent.

To be able to manage multiple owners' rules (via a PPC) on a large estate requires both clear signs and clear demarcation. UKPCM have failed to convey their particular restrictions on their specific section of the wider estate. There is no signage visible whatsoever from the defendants property to inform where there specific section they manage begins.

6. Therefore, it is denied that there was any agreement between the defendant or driver of the vehicle and the claimant. Furthermore, it is denied that the claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim.

7. The defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where a commercial value has to be protected. The claimant has not suffered any loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with BPA distinguished.

8. No figure for additional charges was !!!8216;agreed!!!8217; nor could it have formed part of an alleged !!!8220;contract!!!8221; because no indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.

9. The defendant also disputes the that the claimant has incurred £50.00 costs for legal representative fees for an alleged £100 debt.

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 the interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the claimant.


11. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.


12. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). VCS do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

13. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
1. 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.

2. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.

3. 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.

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




I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

Coupon-mad

3. The defendants tenancy agreement states nothing about consequences of [STRIKE]miss parking[/STRIKE] parking contraventions in the development, and no additional terms are referred to, nor can third party terms be later added to vary the agreement. The unfettered right to park was clearly offered in the tenancy agreement by the Housing Association, not by this Claimant, who have nothing of value to 're-offer' that could constitute consideration.

jollyroger10

Thank you so much, that is much better suited. iv added it in and will be posting it tomorrow morning. day 28/33 so hopefully plenty of time. Im sending with original form and was going to staple it all together. Also iv printed off site map with crosses for lack of signage. photos of no signage able to view from defendants property or from drivers seat. in addition i have photo of car parked with PCM permit thats parked in my bay, just to show confusion for all the residents.

can i ask is it ever the case where the claimants would now not pursue the case baed of the strong defence? or can the judge read and struck it out? is this common? or shall i prepare witness statement and expect the questionnaire defiantly.

Thank you again for all your help so grateful this website and people like yourselves are happy to help !!