Link Parking / Gladstones - unclear signage Court Defence by 23 July

psdie

Hi all - thank you for the amazing work by the kind volunteers here!

I need urgent advice please for drafting my Court Defence filing (orientated around conflicting and unclear signage), due by Saturday 21st (EDIT: actually probably Mon 23rd, as weekend) unfortunately. Sorry for the late notice - just back from holiday.

I've been lurking here for a while picking up advice for a Link Parking (LP) PCN received in Sep last year - I filed an appeal with LP disputing the PCN entirely, on the basis of:

1. A sign right next to the entrance / parking space stating that restricted days were Mon-Sat, meaning unrestricted on the Sunday parking date, in accordance with DfT sign regulations. I much later came to suspect this sign relates to a couple of council-run parking spaces adjacent to the restricted area, but this is impossible to know - the sign is literally next to the space that was parked in!
2. I provided photos of the above to LP in the appeal, along with photos showing the entrance sign (which doesn't mention LP) fully obscured by parked vehicles, and another sign obscured by hedges well away from the parking space near the entrance. No operator signs were legible for these reasons when entering the car park, particularly late evening at the time of parking (no sign illumination) - only the unrestricted sign was clearly visible.

Despite the above, LP refused outright to hear my appeal unless I agreed to identify the driver - which I've refused as I understand there's no legal requirement. I did however provide all details necessary to authenticate myself as an authorised representative - full PCN and personal contact details, etc. I also requested the usual evidence of land owner authority etc, plus acknowledgement of a DPA Section 10 notice to not distribute my personal data, which they have continually ignored to-date.

I received a POFA NtK from LP in November and replied clearly setting out the appeal grounds again (without identifying the driver), with further gathered photos, and repeated my request for documentation and acknowledgement of the Section 10 notice. They sent a generic reply (given the signs are clearly inadequate and conflicting):

The vehicle was parked in a manner which attracted a charge as it was parked whilst not fully displaying a valid permit. It is the drivers responsibility to ensure they meet the parking requirements. Our signs clearly advertise the parking requirements and by not meeting them you accepted our charge.

Given the facts we are rejecting your appeal. We note that you previously refused to comply with our standard appeals process. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).

I received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones in March, with the original £100 PCN amount increased by £60 "claimed by our Client for its time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge. The amount is pre-determined and nominal contribution to our Client's losses as a direct result of your non-payment.". I completed their online PAP reply (and sent them an e-mail with full appeal thread) reiterating that the claim was fully disputed, the key reasons, and highlighting that LP refused to hear my pre-POFA appeal or provide requested evidence of authority.

I also stated that I understood adding additional collection fees is expressly disallowed by POFA, according to advice on this forum - is that correct, and the max they can claim is the original PCN amount?

Gladstones didn't reply. I received a MCOL Claim Form in June - £160, plus £8+ interest (continuing till judgement at £0.04/day), plus £25 Court fee, plus £50 "Legal representative's costs". Again, are they allowed to add legal fees, court fees, interest - or are these generally disallowed by the court in POFA cases if I have followed PAP rules (which I believe I have)? Clarification particularly appreciated on fees, as they increase the amount from £100 to £240+! If any part is disallowed / unlikely to be allowed, what do I do to enforce this?

I now need to submit a Court Defence filing by Saturday, having already submitted an Acknowledgement of Service to the court opting to defend in full, which I'm prepared to do in person at my local Small Claims court.

I'm going to submit this post now as it's getting late, and add further detail - pointers to the best template Defence to start with would be much appreciated, along with any other advice. There's tonnes of threads here with conflicting and sometimes outdated advice (e.g., those highlighted in Irrelevant Defences), so I'd appreciate help.

Many thanks in advance!

KeithP

Your Defence is not due on Saturday.
No Defence is ever due on a Saturday or Sunday.

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Coupon-mad

Gladstones didn't reply. I received a court Claim Form in June - £160, plus £8+ interest (continuing till judgement at £0.04/day), plus £25 Court fee, plus £50 "Legal representative's costs". Again, are they allowed to add legal fees, court fees, interest - or are these generally disallowed by the court in POFA cases if I have followed PAP rules (which I believe I have)? Clarification particularly appreciated on this point, as increases amount from £100 to £240+!

Yes they can add the court fees and interest. No to 'indemnity/admin costs' and probably not legal rep costs because they've made it up.

How does it matter? What you have described, with photo evidence that you submit later at WS stag, sounds like a winning case in all likelihood. When you are confident of a win, the add-ons won't be of any concern because you won't be paying them (almost certainly).

Search the forum for Gladstones abuse of process defence to find the recent postings about how to end a defence by saying the £250+ is an abuse of process. Your results should also show you some good defence wording to crib from.

Is it also a residential car park where the visitor was relying upon the right to park enjoyed by the friend/relative who lives there?

psdie

Hi Keith - thanks for swift reply. Claim Form date was 18 June, making the service date 23 June I believe. I filed "Acknowledgement of service", which I believe makes the defence deadline 28 days from 23 June = 21st July?

Coupon-mad

Yes but obviously not expected over a weekend. This is said on lots of threads.

No Defence is ever due on a Saturday or Sunday.

Yep, seconded.

psdie

Thank you for the quick reply Coupon-mad! Thank you for the reassurance that they likely can't add indemnity/admin or legal costs - should I take steps to dispute this immediately or something? Interest - this link suggests interest should only be added for time between the Claim Form and trial date - so presumably the pre-Claim Form interest is invalid (there's no mention on signage of interest)?

Abuse of process - certainly seems like it, given I understand Gladstones' parent company own the IPC - so there is no independent appeals body, not to mention LP's refusal to hear appeals unless driver identified. I am interested in claiming defence costs assuming I win - how do I calculate this?

Is it also a residential car park where the visitor was relying upon the right to park enjoyed by the friend/relative who lives there?

No - permit only apparently, according to obscured entry sign. The actually visible sign near to parking space also mentions permits OR paid parking (during restricted periods, which Sunday isn't), which adds to the confusion.

KeithP

psdie wrote: »

Hi Keith - thanks for swift reply. Claim Form date was 18 June, making the service date 23 June I believe. I filed "Acknowledgement of service", which I believe makes the defence deadline 28 days from 23 June = 21st July?

So far so good.

But if the calculated due date falls on a non working day you have until 4pm on the next working day to file your Defence.

I.e. your Defence must be filed by 4pm on Monday 23rd July 2018.


When you are happy with the content, 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'.

psdie

Thank you Keith - that buys a few more valuable days, excellent!

Here's a photo of the sign right next to the parking space (#1), to show how confusing. The bollards on left mark start of LP's area - the sign is past them:

Coupon-mad

Thank you for the reassurance that they likely can't add indemnity/admin or legal costs - should I take steps to dispute this immediately or something?

Yes, as per the defence wording I said to use!

psdie

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, as per the defence wording I said to use!

Hi CM - I don't think you highlighted particular wording yet, just said to search the forums for "Gladstones abuse of process defence"? I'm struggling to find which post you mean, via post search (which unfortunately doesn't allow phrases) or Google site search. Appreciate if you can clarify which you mean - or just a pointer to a good up-to-date Defence to start with (those in NEWBIES thread are often old).

In the meantime, I've been putting together a list of various items to cover, including striking out the legal fee + PCN amount increase (as believe barred under POFA), lack of evidence of land owner authority, poor signage, inadequate appeals process (inc lack of independent ADR), ambiguous particulars, vexatious pursuit of a claim without reasonable merit, distinction from Beavis, unreasonable behaviour per CPR 27(2)(g), failure to mitigate costs, etc.

I notice the Claim Form is unsigned - it has Gladstones' HeleX CooX's name printed, with "(Claimant's Legal Representative)" below it - but a blank signature box. Does this mean the form is invalid, or do the courts tend to not care (or perhaps it's standard with MCOL)? I drafted a clause around this, but if it's not important I'll merge with complaints about vague Particulars:

The Claim Form issued on X is not correctly filed under the Practice Direction as it is unsigned. Practice Direction 22 requires a Statement of Truth signature from the Claimant or their representative, followed by the signatory's name and position - the signature mark is missing. The Defence contends that this omission is due to the "robo claim" nature of the Legal Representative's business, meaning they have not taken the time to discuss the case with their client to ensure accuracy. As the Statement of Truth is unsigned, the claim should be struck out.

My notes include a Particulars clause along the lines of:

The Particulars of Claim are vague and ambiguous, preventing the defendant from providing a complete defence. The Particulars fail to state what specific "terms of parking" are claimed to have been breached; ambiguously describe the £60 increment above the original PCN amount of £100 as "Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable"; and fail to specify how the backdated interest claim was calculated (given on-location signs and the NTK make no mention of interest terms).

As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

psdie

For reference, here's the Particulars from the Claim Form:

The driver of the vehicle registration X (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on X for breaching the terms of parking on the land at X - TOWN POSTCODE. 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 £8.xx pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.0x per day.

I notice the Particulars seem to be better worded than some of those shown in slightly older Gladstones cases (ie, not just a table of details, plus claim amounts), so want to ensure I start with a Defence example that is up-to-date.

Observations welcome - e.g., does the Particulars wording properly demonstrate "cause of action", or should I state it fails to do this due to ambiguities?