Defence of County Court Claim Form for parking

Bigboppa

Thankyou everyone for all your help/advice.


Coupon-mad, if It was decided to defend as the driver do I need to change any wording on this defense ?




1. It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.


2. It is denied that any "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim ('POC') are owed and any debt is denied in it's entirety. The POC fail to state anything about the alleged breach of terms.


3. Notwithstanding the failure of the POC to state any detail, the Defendant is aware that there was one unfair parking charge notice (PCN) affixed to this vehicle in 2017, where the PCN was punitive and appeared to be no more than a predatory scam, with narrow bays painted in an awkward shape and angle at the end, for no more reason than seemingly, to entrap motorists.

3.1. The car adjacent to this vehicle was parked right up to the line, causing the driver to have to place the car carefully and courteously alongside, albeit at a slight angle. It would not have been possible to get out of the car, and the other car would not have been able to open their boot, if the vehicle had been parked right up against the white line. It is an unusual angle for cars to park at anyway, and an aerial view of the two spaces would look like an L shape, so the driver's door was in line with the rear of the other vehicle.

3.2. This exact situation was briefly touched upon by the Judges at the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the concept of ticketing cars for having to park at an angle due to the line of the first car in the row, was considered to be potentially unfair, but that was not the situation so the discussion moved on to consider the facts of the case and whether the charge at hand was unconscionable or justified, as must always be considered with any PCN, on a case-by-case basis.

3.3. However, the Supreme Court Judges stated that the penalty rule was undoubtedly engaged in all parking charge cases and the Beavis case charge was only saved from being held to be an unrecoverable and unconscionable penalty, due to the compelling commercial justification of the value of offering a licence for '2 hours free' parking in that busy retail park and the necessity to ensure a regular turnover of bays. None of this applies in this case and the Defendant avers this charge is punitive and not saved by any compelling legitimate interest, which cannot be to punish drivers.

4.It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.
a) 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.
b) The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
c) 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. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.


5.The Letter before Action omitted the following information
a) Include details of the breach of contract.
b) A list of the relevant documents/evidence on which the Claimant intends to rely.


6. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes.
Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

7. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.

8. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.


9. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

10. I 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 20/09/16 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''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Bigboppa

A parking defence has been submitted to the court.

Acknowledgement has been received from the court.


" I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).The claimant may contact you directly to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.
Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can them take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay."


I have since recieved a letter from Gladstones.

" We note from our file that we have yet to be provided a copy of your Defence.
A litigant in person you may not be aware that you are required to file and serve a copy of the same on both the Court and ourselves.
We therefore look forward to recieving a copy of your defence by return.
To expedite we may for a copy via email to *************@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk"

My question is do i ignore this Gladstones letter ? The Defence acknowledgement letter stated " I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor ".

The_Deep

You must not expect them to get things right, they are a low rent law firm with scammers as clients. they are up to their necks in dodgy parking claims and have been reported to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority by Members of Parliament.

If you feel that this letter constitutes conduct liable to bring their profession into disrepute, complain here.

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

is 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 House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

System

I preferred your other thread as it had all the information in it. Is there a reason for a second one?

nosferatu1001

Indeed you agreed to one case one thread

You actually do not have to serve on the claimant as well. Thats the job of the court. You could simply email back telling them to go get a copy from the court, as its an issue between them and the court. You have done your part according to the CPRs.

Bigboppa

Sorry Guys I will post on the other thread from now on

Bigboppa

Defence Submitted Letter received from Gladstones





A parking defence has been submitted to the court.

Acknowledgement has been received from the court.


" I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).The claimant may contact you directly to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.
Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can them take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay."


I have since received a letter from Gladstones.

" We note from our file that we have yet to be provided a copy of your Defence.
A litigant in person you may not be aware that you are required to file and serve a copy of the same on both the Court and ourselves.
We therefore look forward to receiving a copy of your defence by return.
To expedite we may for a copy via email to *************@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk"

My question is do I ignore this Gladstones letter ? The Defence acknowledgement letter stated " I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor ".

Le_Kirk

Bigboppa wrote: »

Sorry Guys I will post on the other thread from now on

Just send a PM to a board guide, Savvy, Soolin or Crabman to merge your threads. That makes it cleaner and stops different people posting on different threads.

Coupon-mad

Ignore the drivel. The court will send them the defence and they are just in intimidation mode.

Crabman

Threads have been merged.