UKCPM - Gladstones Claim Form Received

DragonQ

Hi all,

This is a cross-post from Pepipoo. I have received a claim form from Gladstones solicitors on behalf of UK CPM. Here's a summary of the situation:

• My car was parked in a visitor bay near my property
• My title deeds include a restriction that binds me to a contract ("transfer") signed by the original owners and whoever built the property
• This transfer document grants me the right to use the visitor bays with no restrictions other than type and weight of vehicle
• UK CPM wants my money because they claim no permit was in the car and the signage says a permit must be displayed
• There is nothing about permits or charging for parking in the transfer

Here's a summary of the correspondence so far:

• I sent an email to the management agent demanding that they contact UK CPM and cancel the charge. They did not reply.
• I received the NTK. I replied to the NTK essentially saying they have no right to demand any money from me.
• I received a reply from UK CPM to my letter, basically saying that I don't own the space (amusing since I am a shareholder in the company that does, according to my deeds) and I was aware of the conditions of having to display a permit due to the signs.
• I sent another email to the management agent. They replied telling me who the landowner was (a company that I am a member of) but did not reply to anything else.
• Gladstones sent me a Letter Before Claim. I replied saying it wasn't compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol and that they hadn't actually provided any evidence of the money owed. I asked them to send a compliant LBC.
• Gladstones replied with a generic FAQ and a photocopy of UKCPM's original reply (see point 3).
• I replied reiterating that I owed them nothing and to send paper versions of the PAP documents if they wanted a reply. I received no reply.
• I received a Claim Form two weeks ago. I've acknowledged it and need to send the defence this week (I am away next week).

Below is my draft defence:

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

-and-

DEFENDANT
________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________

1) It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2) The Defendant acknowledges that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in a visitor residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant.

3) The Defendant denies any amount is owed to the Claimant in relation to the incident described in the Particulars of Claim, or any other occasion where the Defendant’s vehicle is parked in a visitor residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant.

4) The Particulars of Claim (dated <DATE>) states the Claimant is demanding payment for “breaching the terms of parking on the land”. However, the Claimant has not provided the Defendant with a copy of the contract containing those terms and conditions and it has not specified the particular term(s) or condition(s) which it purports the Defendant to have breached.

a) The Defendant contends he has not entered a contract with the Claimant and so cannot be in breach of any terms.

b) In the event of the Claimant providing further details of its Particulars of Claim, the Defendant reserves the right to amend or add to this, his statement of defence.

5) The Claimant issued a Letter Before Claim to the Defendant on <DATE> but the letter failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

a) The Defendant responded to the Letter Before Claim on <DATE> asking the Claimant whether their intention was to request a response under the Pre-Action Protocol and, if so, to explain their failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol and send a new Letter Before Claim that was compliant. The Defendant also made it clear he desired a human response to the letter, not a generic templated one.

b) The Claimant responded to the Defendant’s letter on <DATE> with a generic list of Frequently Asked Questions and included a previous letter sent to the Defendant by their client. This was also not compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol.

c) The Defendant replied again to the Claimant’s letter on <DATE> explicitly asking the Claimant to indicate clearly whether they intended to begin court proceedings and, if so, send a paper copy of the Pre-Action Protocol so that the Defendant could respond.

d) The Claimant never responded to this request and thus never sent the Defendant a compliant Letter Before Claim. Having failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the Claimant should not have brought this claim.

6) In the Property Title owned by the Defendant (dated <DATE>), it is stated that “the land has the benefit of the rights granted by but is subject to the rights reserved by the Transfer dated <DATE> referred to in the Charges Register” (hereby referred to as “the Transfer”). This case relates to land where the Defendant’s rights are governed by the Transfer.

7) The Claimant has chosen to blatantly disregard the existence of the Transfer and the rights granted to the Defendant under it.

8) The Defendant, as the property owner, is referred to as the “Purchaser” and “Transferee” within the Transfer.

9) In the Transfer, in consideration of the purchase price, a freehold property, which is the Defendant’s home, was transferred to the Defendant together with certain rights, including the right to use any visitors parking space in the vicinity of the property for the temporary parking of private motor vehicles not exceeding three tonnes gross laden weight.

a) The Transfer acknowledges receipt of the purchase price by the Transferor.

b) The purchase price included full consideration for the Defendant’s right to park in the visitors parking spaces.

c) There are no other parking charges for which the Defendant is liable, according to the Transfer.

d) The Defendant is, therefore, fully entitled to use the visitors parking spaces and, when the vehicle was parked in one of them on <DATE>, it was parked in full compliance with the Transfer without any parking charge being due.

10) The Defendant is further protected against the Claimant’s unauthorised and predatory parking scheme by (a) the Claimant’s lack of any third-party rights in relation to the Transfer, (b) the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all such documents, and © the legal principle of the right to quiet enjoyment also implied in all such documents.

11) The Defendant’s relationship with the Transferor is governed directly by the Transfer, not via any contract with the Claimant.

a) The Transferor has transferred the property to the Defendant with the aforesaid right to use the visitors parking spaces and has reserved no right to impose any further terms governing the Defendant’s use of the visitors parking spaces, either directly or through the Claimant.

b) If the Defendant had breached any term or condition of the Transfer, which is not the case, the Transferor’s remedy would be to seek damages, not a parking charge, from the Defendant and/or to seek an injunction ordering the Defendant not to repeat the breach.

c) Consequently, neither the Transferor nor its agents, if any, have any standing in relation to the claim.

12) The Defendant’s relationship with the Management Company (also defined in the Transfer) is governed directly by the Transfer, not via any contract with the Claimant.

a) The Transfer confers neither any right nor any obligation on the Management Company to impose any further terms governing the Defendant’s use of the visitors parking spaces either directly or through the Claimant.

b) Consequently, neither the Management Company nor its agents, if any, have any standing in relation to the claim.

13) There is nothing in the Transfer or elsewhere which compels the Defendant to enter into a contract with the Claimant, who is a stranger to the Transfer, for parking in the visitors parking spaces.

14) Insofar as the visitors parking spaces are concerned, the intention of the Transfer was to provide the Defendant (and other Transferees) with rights to use those spaces.

15) It is perverse that the Claimant should seek to manage parking in the private car park by making parking available to the general public (albeit at exorbitant cost).

16) The Claimant cannot derive any right to use the visitors parking spaces for the purposes of its business from any of the parties to the Transfers.

17) It follows that the Claimant has no parking to offer and, for the purposes of a contract, the Claimant lacks consideration.

18) In turn, it follows that the Claimant has no grounds for charging the Defendant for the use of the visitors parking spaces: they do not own the land where the vehicle was parked, nor do they have any interest in the land, and thus they lack the capacity to offer parking. The Claimant also has no authority to bring a claim.

19) Insofar as the visitors parking spaces are concerned, the Claimant is nothing more than a nuisance without any standing at all.

20) Recent cases have set a clear precedence that private parking companies cannot override existing contracts via signage. The Transfer grants the Defendant the right to use the visitor parking spaces without any of the restrictions that the Claimant is attempting to impose. The Defendant refers to the following examples:

a) In the case of Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, parking restrictions and a change which caused detriment to tenants/homeowners and their visitors were held to be in breach of the well-known and well-established principle that “a grantor shall not derogate from his grant”.

b) In the case of Jopson v Home Guard Services, appeal case number B9GF0A9E [29/09/2016], it was found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats, and that the parking company could not override the tenant’s existing rights.

c) In the case of Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 [16/09/2016], District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, having found that a third-party parking firm cannot override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to be displayed in the vehicle. This is based on the well-established legal doctrine that an existing contract cannot be unilaterally altered.

d) In the case of Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016], it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

21) The signage within the Management Land (as defined by the Transfer and including the visitors parking spaces), which attempts to create contracts with property owners and lessors, includes a roundel stating that the Claimant is a British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator. The Defendant has confirmed with the British Parking Association that the Claimant is in fact not a BPA Approved Operator and is not permitted to display such a roundel.

a) The Defendant believes that the Claimant is therefore in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (and Amendment 2014).

b) The Defendant believes that the Claimant is using the BPA roundel in an attempt to increase their perceived authority and thus mislead residents and visitors. As such, the Defendant asks that the Court does not assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur actio.)

22) Even if the signage created a valid contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Particulars of the Claim indicate a claim of £xxx for “parking charges / damages” by the Claimant. The signage on Management Land clearly states the Parking Charge Notice amount is £xxx, so the Claimant has no basis for demanding £xxx for “Parking Charges / Damages”.

a) The Defendant believes that the amount of interest being charged by the Claimant (x%) is entirely unreasonable considering the current Bank of England base rate of 0.5%.

23) The Claimant is a well-known parking operator with wide experience in this field. With such wide experience of parking matters, it is reasonable to expect the Claimant to know that, for a parking scheme to be valid, a contract needs to exist between itself and a person who (a) is either the owner or occupier of the land or authorised under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land and (b) has power to override any pre-existing contrary contractual conditions applying to the land.

a) The Claimant has, however, acted negligently by failing to establish the credentials of the other party to its parking contract, whoever that other party may be.

b) If the Claimant had acted with skill, care and diligence, they would have realised that the other party to its contract to manage parking on the relevant land, whoever it may be, is not empowered to enter into such a contract with the Claimant.

c) If the Claimant had acted with skill, care and diligence, they would have detected that the land is subject to pre-existing terms and conditions which have primacy of contract over the Claimant’s fatally flawed arrangements.

24) It is the Defendant’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.

25) The Defendant request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar 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' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

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

I'd just like a second opinion on my defence statement before I send it please!

System

Edited for brevity.

Coupon-mad

DEFENCE STATEMENT

should be

DEFENCE

And have a look at Johnersh's residential defence example, linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2. He has covered things more succintly and has suggested headings to divide the points up and make it more readable.

I like the points in your defence but at the mo it reads like an overly long wall of words.

DragonQ

Coupon-mad wrote: »

should be



And have a look at Johnersh's residential defence example, linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2. He has covered things more succintly and has suggested headings to divide the points up and make it more readable.

I like the points in your defence but at the mo it reads like an overly long wall of words.

Thanks I've had a look at that and tried to move things around to make more sense. I've added most of the stuff from the Preliminary section, aside from the IAS bit since as far as I know they never got involved (UKCPM replied directly to the appeal letter I sent).


Here's version 2 (haven't proofread it yet, numbers and formatting are definitely slightly off):

[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT CASE No. BLAH BETWEEN[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]UK Car Park Management Limited[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]and[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]BLAH[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]________________________[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]________________________[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Preliminary[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.1) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details, nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.2) The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is “robo-claims” which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.1) 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. The Claimant never provided the Defendant with the contact details of the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), despite clearly stating they would do so in the original Parking Charge Notice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.3) The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant’s Trade Body, the Independent 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’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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.4) Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Background[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) The Defendant acknowledges that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in a visitors residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5) The Defendant denies any amount is owed to the Claimant in relation to the incident described in the Particulars of Claim, or any other occasion where the Defendant’s vehicle is parked in a visitors residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6) The Defendant contends he has not entered a contract with the Claimant and so cannot be in breach of any terms.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7) In the Property Title owned by the Defendant, it is stated that “the land has the benefit of the rights granted by but is subject to the rights reserved by the Transfer referred to in the Charges Register” (hereby referred to as “the Transfer”). This case relates to land where the Defendant’s rights are governed by the Transfer (hereby referred to as “Management Land”).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8) The Transfer grants certain rights to the Defendant as the property owner, including the right to use any visitors parking space in the vicinity of the property for the temporary parking of private motor vehicles not exceeding three tonnes gross laden weight.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8.1) The Defendant is, therefore, fully entitled to use the visitors parking spaces and, when the vehicle was parked in one of them on DATE, it was parked in full compliance with the Transfer without any parking charge being due.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9) The Defendant avers that the Claimant has chosen to blatantly disregard the existence of the Transfer and the rights granted to the Defendant under it. The Claimant cannot[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the Transfer, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10) The Defendant is further protected against the Claimant’s unauthorised and predatory parking scheme by[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](i) the Claimant’s lack of any third-party rights in relation to the Transfer, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](ii) the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all such documents, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](iii) the legal principle of the right to quiet enjoyment also implied in all such documents.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11) The Defendant will rely on several recent judgements that have set a clear precedent that private parking companies cannot override existing contracts via signage: Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011; Jopson v Home Guard Services, appeal case number B9GF0A9E [29/09/2016]; Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 [16/09/2016]; and Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016]. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No Contract and No Breach[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12) Insofar as the visitors parking spaces are concerned, the intention of the Transfer was to provide the Defendant (and other Transferees, i.e. residents) with rights to use those spaces.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13) It is perverse that the Claimant should seek to manage parking in the private car park by making parking available to the general public (albeit at exorbitant cost).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]14) There is nothing in the Transfer or elsewhere which compels the Defendant to enter into a contract with the Claimant, who is a stranger to the Transfer, for parking in the visitors parking spaces.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15) The Claimant cannot derive any right to use the visitors parking spaces for the purposes of its business from any of the parties to the Transfers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15.1) It follows that the Claimant has no parking to offer and, for the purposes of a contract, the Claimant lacks consideration.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15.2) In turn, it follows that the Claimant has no grounds for charging the Defendant for the use of the visitors parking spaces: they do not own the Management Land where the vehicle was parked, nor do they have any interest in the Management Land, and thus they lack the capacity to offer parking. The Claimant has no authority to bring a claim.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]15.3) Insofar as the visitors parking spaces are concerned, the Claimant is nothing more than a nuisance without any standing at all.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the Alternative: Negligence[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16) The signage within the Management Land, which attempts to create contracts with property owners and lessors, includes a roundel stating that the Claimant is a British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator. The Defendant has confirmed with the BPA that the Claimant is in fact not a BPA Approved Operator and is not permitted to display such a roundel.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16.1) The Defendant believes that the Claimant is therefore in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (and Amendment 2014).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16.2) The Defendant believes that the Claimant is using the BPA roundel in an attempt to increase their perceived authority and thus mislead residents and visitors. As such, the Defendant asks that the Court does not assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur actio.)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17) Even if the signage created a valid contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Particulars of the Claim indicate a claim of £yyy for “parking charges / damages” by the Claimant. The signage on Management Land clearly states the Parking Charge Notice amount is £xxx, so the Claimant has no basis for demanding £yyy for “Parking Charges / Damages”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17.1) The Defendant believes that the amount of interest being charged by the Claimant (z%) is entirely unreasonable considering the current Bank of England base rate of 0.5%.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18) The Claimant is a well-known parking operator with wide experience in this field, so it is reasonable to expect the Claimant to know that, for a parking scheme to be valid, a contract needs to exist between itself and a person who[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](i) is either the owner or occupier of the land or authorised under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](ii) has power to override any pre-existing contrary contractual conditions applying to the land.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18.1) The Claimant has, however, acted negligently by failing to establish the credentials of the other party to its (presumedly existent) contract to manage parking on the Management Land, whoever that other party may be.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18.2) If the Claimant had acted with skill, care and diligence, they would have realised that the other party to its (presumedly existent) parking contract, whoever it may be, is not empowered to enter into such a contract with the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18.3) If the Claimant had acted with skill, care and diligence, they would have detected that the Management Land is subject to pre-existing terms and conditions which have primacy of contract over the Claimant’s fatally flawed arrangements.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19) 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. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Wholly Unreasonable and Vexatious Claim[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20) 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).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21) It is the Defendant’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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22) The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant’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).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23) 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’ template particulars for a private parking firm being ‘incoherent’, failing to comply with CPR 16.4, and ‘‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’’.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]24) 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I confirm the facts stated in this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]NAME[/FONT]

I could still trim it down a bit, and maybe I've repeated myself in one or two places. Thoughts?

DragonQ

I've slightly updated the version above and am preparing to send it tonight. As for the email to the court, is the following OK?

To whom it may concern,

Please find attached my Defence for the county court case no. <number>, issued on DATE. Please note the following:

- I served an Acknowledgement of Service via Money Claim Online (MCOL) on DATE.
- I intend to defend all of this claim.
- I am sending my Defence via email due to it being longer than the MCOL form allows for.

Please reply acknowledging receipt of my Defence for this case.

Yours faithfully,

<name>

KeithP

Here's what I often post at this time:

Your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

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'.

DragonQ

Already done steps 1-3.