Gladstones letter before claim

tofts

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

You did this online I hope?

i did indeed, would have done it Friday but all gateway services seemed to be down as I was trying to do VAT as well and that didn't work either!

KeithP

tofts wrote: »

Issue date on claim for is NOV 8th, I have followed the advice on thread 2 of newbies and submitted the AOS this morning of the 12th.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks. 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 suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

tofts

Have had a busy time with various personal issues so this has slipped my mind somewhat but we are still within the timeframe. At this Juncture, I Would appreciate some input regarding my defence with ref to this, I feel there should be more but honestly its quite simple?



1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) The vehicle in question was used as a runabout for materials collection and other duties to conduct electrical renovations to the restaurant "Insert Restaurant name here".

3) Permission to park outside of the restaurant was granted via the owner of the restaurant.

4) The onsite management team “Mainstay” issued a permit for the vehicle to cover the period of works up until Mid-July, this to cover any area on Pier/jetty 5.

5) On numerous occasions the vehicle was asked to be moved by Mainstay to facilitate a clear and tidy main promenande.

5) The main site permit remained in the vehicle when moved and was also accompanied by an additional ticket from the machine (Unnecessary as permission had already been given), parking in this area being free of charge.

6) No less than three different signs have been supplied as evidence to support this parking charge. All of which have completely different terms and wording.

7) The signage closest to the vehicle states “terms of parking without permission” and fees if broken. Permission was created and given by verbal contract by way of being asked to move to the lower levels of the jetty by the onsite management team Mainstay to prevent obstruction of the promenade notwithstanding the permit itself, there then the vehicle remained until completion of that working day.

8) Over the course of 8 weeks, the vehicle was parked in a similar manor in this parking area several times without any issues.

9) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

10) I request the court strike out this claim xxxxxxxx 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.

Redx

reads more like a WS than a DEFENCE


check the BARGEPOLE defences and his recent posts to see what it should look like


save the above to hone it for your WS in a few months time

tofts

thanks for that, must be honest as I was writing it I was unsure. Must have missed a trick. Busy brain and more important things to worry about, will check it out immediately, thankyou for your help and prompt reply!

tofts

OK, Try again. This particular defence was very relevant, I have changed various details to make it unique to my claim.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date, and had a valid permit to be parked anywhere within Pier 5.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “ZIPPY” was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) “BUNGLE” These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. There are no less than 3 separate signs used by the claimant, all of which have different particulars thus providing an unclear definition to the terms needed to park. The sign closest to the defendant’s vehicle merely states that vehicles must be parked with permission with no definition to what constitutes permission.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is expressly given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Redx

wait for more replies but yes that looks ok to me and is what I meant and you can easily see the difference between that and the previous WS you posted

The_Deep

I am amazed that the solicitor is trying to mug one of its client's main contractors If the OP calls the their client as a witness surely the solicitor will struggle.

As this is a B to B claim they could be in for heavy costs if they lose
(hotels, Travel, meals, etc.), have you considered unreasonable behaviour costs OP?

tofts

RedX, Yes, I understand now, got a bit carried awy but cheers for the poke.

The Deep:
I almost think this proves that they are somewhat "robo claims".

To be honest, I have a few personal issues that I must resolve and so this is low on my pecking order. But I have thought about it yes, I assume if this actually goes to court I will have to attend, erm, northampton? in which case I would at least like my costs returned, loss of earnings etc, but if this just gets thrown out I will be happy to let it go. Not to say I couldn't do something later I guess?

Castle

Is the Defendant an individual or a Company?