Court Claim form from UK Car park management & Gladstone

masatoi

The issue date is 04 Oct 2018.

I read through some of the similar cases and my understanding is that I need to write the diffence and DQ like the previous one but ask the court to combine the 2 cases is this correct?

nosferatu1001

You write the defences, and in the defence mention both claims and that you ask for the claims to be struck out as an abuse of the court process OR for the claims to be combined.
LATER you will get likely TWO DQs to complete, where you repeat the same request. Give all refs each time.

KeithP

masatoi wrote: »

The issue date is 04 Oct 2018.

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th October, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until until 4pm on Tuesday 6th November 2018 to file your Defence.

Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date 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'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

LKF

Hi,

I hope you can help.

I have received a letter from Gladstone solicitors this week on behalf of PCM regarding four parking tickets i got on my estate over a year ago.

It is private parking where I live and you either need to be parking in your designated parking spot or have a visitors badge to park in a space marked with a V.

The parking isn't good at all on my estate with all of the V spots allot of the time being taken, which means you have to drive around to find a free space and end up parking either down the road somewhere or around the corner.

I received these parking tickets as I was parking in a space which is designated to someone else's property but they do not own a car so it is never used. Even though I had a visitors badge displaying in my car, I still got a ticket as according to PCM you have to parked in an actual visitors parking space.

I received letters which I ignored (as everyone does on my estate) and after all this time have now received this letter demanding £640 (£160 per ticket).
The weird thing is, I have actually had a ticket fairly recently which I paid and I feel like since paying this it has sparked them to get in contact with me for the old tickets again.

I haven't received any letters regarding these tickets in months up until now and am wondering.... should I pay? if i decide not too and go down the legal route, do I have a leg to stand on? What will happen if i ignore the letter? Are they allowed to randomly send me a letter after all of this time without any contact?

Any advise/input would be much appreciated.

Thanks

trisontana

LKF wrote: »

Hi,

I hope you can help.

I have received a letter from Gladstone solicitors this week on behalf of PCM regarding four parking tickets i got on my estate over a year ago.

It is private parking where I live and you either need to be parking in your designated parking spot or have a visitors badge to park in a space marked with a V.

The parking isn't good at all on my estate with all of the V spots allot of the time being taken, which means you have to drive around to find a free space and end up parking either down the road somewhere or around the corner.

I received these parking tickets as I was parking in a space which is designated to someone else's property but they do not own a car so it is never used. Even though I had a visitors badge displaying in my car, I still got a ticket as according to PCM you have to parked in an actual visitors parking space.

I received letters which I ignored (as everyone does on my estate) and after all this time have now received this letter demanding £640 (£160 per ticket).
The weird thing is, I have actually had a ticket fairly recently which I paid and I feel like since paying this it has sparked them to get in contact with me for the old tickets again.

I haven't received any letters regarding these tickets in months up until now and am wondering.... should I pay? if i decide not too and go down the legal route, do I have a leg to stand on? What will happen if i ignore the letter? Are they allowed to randomly send me a letter after all of this time without any contact?

Any advise/input would be much appreciated.

Thanks

The "advise" (advice) is to please start your own thread.

masatoi

Hi LKF

Once you've read trisontana's comment and started your own thread can you please delete your comment here?

You came to the right place but not the right thread

Thanks

masatoi

I'm thinking to copy below case for my second case. Would that be ok?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5894398&highlight=res+judicata#18

masatoi

And here is the communication between myself and Gladstones and the last paragraph is the claim.



LETTER BEFORE CLAIM

July 2018


We act on behalf of the Claimant and we have now been instructed to commence legal action against you to recover the amount due above, as you have failed to settle the debts that are owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. We understand that our client has written to you to request payment but the amounts are still outstanding. PCN Number Date of Charge Location

The charge amount includes £60 claimed by our Client for its time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge. The amount is a pre-determined and nominal contribution to our Client's losses as a direct result of your nonpayment.

In the event the outstanding debt is not paid in full, we are instructed to commence legal proceedings. Our Client is satisfied that it has sufficient evidence to support this claim and, if necessary, will rely on this evidence in Court.
If you believe you have a valid reason for non-payment, you are able to reply pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 ('the PAP'). A version of the Information Sheet and Reply Form taken from the PAP can be completed on our website https://www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk. Before completing the online Reply Form, you must first create a login, for which you will require your reference (101295.15384). Alternatively, you can request a paper version (see overleaf).
We refer you to Paragraph 2.1(c) of the PAP which obliges the parties to act reasonably and proportionately.
Please pay or reply within 30 days of the date of this letter. Any reply received outside of the 30 day period may not be considered as legal proceedings are likely to have been issued.




My Response to LBC

Dear Sir/madam

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of July 2018.
Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me with a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 establishing yourself as the creditor;
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Kind regards


Reply to my E-mail

8th August 2018

We write further to the above matter. Thank you for your email of the 18/07/2018. By way of a
response, kindly note the following.
We refer you the original parking charge notice issued to you on the 24/02/2016, a copy enclosed
herewith for your consideration. The notice stipulates that you were parked in a manner unauthorised at Rosehill Triangle, namely you did not display a valid permit. This is why you became liable for the charge.
As can be seen on the attached photograph, there is no permit displayed in your vehicle in
accordance with the signage that is contained on the site. You were offered the use of the Land by way of clear signage. You could either follow the rules and avoid a parking charge or breach the rules and agree to pay the charge as set out in the signs. Unfortunately, you breached the terms of the sign and are liable to pay the outstanding charge as detailed below:

Dear sirs

Thank you for your reply. However your reply does not fully answer my questions or requests I wrote to you in the previous message.

I list the request here again could you please answer one by one next to each question/request

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me with a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 establishing yourself as the creditor;
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

Without clarifying these points I cannot take this any further.

Kind regards,

Particulars of Claim

The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXX (The Vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on xxxx2016 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXX.

The defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the keeper of the Vehicle.

And the claimant claims £160 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £32.43 pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.

masatoi

Introduction


1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. This is a statement of truth and bases of the defence.

3. 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 as an unrepresented litigant-in-person and seeks the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant’s case.

4. 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. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

5. It is believed as a matter of common ground, the claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXX when it was parked at XXXXXXX. The PCN stated the contravention as “Not displaying a valid permit”.


Rebuttal of Claim

6. It is denied that:

a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012.
f. The claimant company fully complied with the requirements of the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct (Pre-Action Protocol October 2017)
g. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
h. That the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

7. It is further denied that the Defendant owes any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and vexatious.

8. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

9. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.


The Defence

10. The Defendant will reply principally upon the following points:

11. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:

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 landowner'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.

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.

b. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

c. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

d. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

12. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a residential car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis

Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves.

13. The Claimant failed with its obligations to comply with the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Conduct. The updated legislation of the new Pre-Action Protocol (October 2017) outlines procedures that need to be followed prior to Claimants engaging in court proceedings.

14. The Claimants Letter of Claim (Letter before claim) failed to include:

a. The information sheet and reply form
b. Financial statement

Further again ignoring the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol.

15. The Pre-Action Protocol encourages early disclosure of documents. The defendant requested information from the Claimant via E-mail dated 18th July 18. As per timescales under the protocol the creditor should not issue court proceedings until 30 days after the date on which the creditor provides documents requested by the debtor.

Once again the Creditor has failed to comply with the Pre-Action protocol as court proceedings were served 4th October 18.

16. Taking into account the above points the Defendant will be seeking their costs on the indemnity basis due to the above conduct which was the final insult after the wholly unreasonable and vexatious stance of a parking firm who:

a. Already has an ongoing case (claim no. xxxxxxxx - about the same location) that they filed against this Defendant in June 2018.

b. Appear to be ignorant regarding the doctrine of res judicata, despite using a solicitor, Gladstones, which shared Directors with the parking Trade Body, the IPC, and files thousands of parking claims and is expected to conduct itself professionally with regard to its first duty to the Courts and due process.

c. Is clearly engaging in a vexatious pursuit of this Defendant, when they already know about the easements and rights enjoyed by residents at the material location, who indisputably have primacy of contract, and


17. These failures and the vexatious nature of this typical cut & paste 'one size fits all' parking charge robo-claim, with no checks being made about the facts to show that the Claimant has any claim in law or even that the CPRs, the DPA and Practice Direction are being fairly followed, cannot be described as 'trivial' conduct.

18. As a result, the Defendant avers that having been put to the distress and harassment of a second baseless claim, where this Claimant is no doubt hoping for a different result from their first failed claim but have spiralled into conduct that amounts to a gross abuse of process, sanctions should be imposed. The Defendant relies upon para 41 ofMitchell v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795 which is re-iterated in para 24 ofDenton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 and seeks an order to grant the Defendant's wasted costs on the indemnity basis, not least to send a message to Gladstones and this prolific and notorious parking firm Claimant.

19. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.

20. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.

This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

redrabbit17

I just won in court today against UKPC - for parking in my own space without displaying a valid permit. Due to the fact I had a permit and it was controlled entry with a fob, the judge dismissed all of the tickets, even if it wasn't displayed on the dashboard. Passenger seat (or anywhere else for that matter) was good enough for him.