Court Claim - Gladstones/Gemini

erinbrockovich

Hi guys,

I've had a good read of all the newbie information and tried to make a good first attempt at my statement of defense but I'll give a few details first then post the statement of defense in a reply.

My girlfriend apparently got two parking tickets in my old car (now sold) in a hospital car park in 2017. The car was registered to my parents' house (200 miles from me) so any letters have been going there. I had no idea about this until I received a text message to say I have not responded to a 'pre-action letter'. I logged onto Gladstones' online portal where it gave absolutely no details other than the several hundred pounds I allegedly owe and the registration of my old car.

I managed to get hold of a few more details - one is for no permit and one for invalid permit. The person on the phone said I have now ran out of time to reply to the letters before claim and they have now both been submitted to the county court business centre and I can expect two court claims to arrive shortly - at my parents' address.

I guess fortunately I have a head start and can start preparing for their arrival. Please see statement of defense below and let me know what you think. I copied it mostly from a successful one I found of a guy who went to court over parking outside the lines of a sealife centre

erinbrockovich

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

(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).
Gemini Parking Solutions are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have to reasonable believe that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.

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.

d) No contract has been provided showing a relationship between The Claimant and the Landowner.

e) It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner, who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that the alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. As was confirmed in the ParkingEye V Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all under this tort, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none).

(3).
The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.

a) The Claimant did not identify the driver

b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver!!!8217;s alleged breach.

c) !!!8216;Keeper liability!!!8217; under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8220;the POFA!!!8221;) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant!!!8217;s Parking Charge Notice and Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording and deadlines set by the POFA and, further, that the signs failed to provide !!!8216;adequate notice!!!8217; of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217;.

(4).
a) It is submitted that no contract to park existed between the Defendant and the Claimant, because the signage at **** Hospital carpark was insufficiently clear, judged by the standards laid out by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015].

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

c) The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £*** to agree to the alleged contract, had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed as mentioned above.

d) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read

e) The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to !!!8216;validly display!!!8217; the ticket in the windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; or !!!8216;relevant contract!!!8217; as required under Schedule 4 of POFA

f) In the absence of !!!8216;adequate notice!!!8217; of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

g) Even if a contract is deemed to have existed between the Defendant and the Claimant, it is submitted that the terms and conditions have not been broken, due to the above lack of clarity about marked and unmarked bays.

(5).
a) The Claimant has submitted no evidence of the alleged violation relating to parking in an unmarked bay.

b) The Claimant has submitted no evidence of clear bay markings or road cross-hatching at the time of the incident.

c) The Claimant has failed to follow the Code of Practice (CoP) of their Trade Body, as regards clear signage and acting in a professional manner to ensure that action is not taken without any cause. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that such a CoP is effectively 'regulation' full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

(6).
a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, nor how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. This appears to be an added cost with no qualification, and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

b) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(7).
(a) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a !!!8216;local!!!8217; recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £** to the original £*** with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £** solicitor costs.

c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £** costs to pursue an alleged £*** debt.

d) Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.

e) The Claimant described the charge of £** "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

f) The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be
recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(8). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts, and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. The Defendant contends the signs at London Aquatics Centre carpark are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.

The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

Coupon-mad

defense

Make sure you head it up DEFENCE (not defense nor Defence Statement and NOT 'statement of defence'!). Eeek! But that's for later.

Send an email to Gladstones TONIGHT with your correct address and forbid them from using what they KNOW from the phone conversation is an old address with relatives living there who would be intimidated.

State your current address and ask for the LBCCCs to be re-issued and the planned court claims held in abeyance, to allow you to respond to a LBCCC you have NOT seen (and they know that).

And make them remove the old address data forthwith, and threaten a complaint to the ICO, if they file a claim after this date to the old address.

And ask that they merge both cases into ONE claim or you will get the second one struck out anyway, or merged later so they will be wasting fees to file two.

Yes you can find Gladstones' email, by searching the forum for those words!

erinbrockovich

Thanks for that advice I'll do that now.

I did think it would be a nightmare dealing with two separate claims!

KeithP

"the authorised registered keeper"

Leave out the word 'authorised'.

System

What are the actual facts surrounding the issue of the tickets? Nothing in the defence actually addresses that and you may get a default loss.

You've got rid of the car. Do you still have the girlfriend? If so find out what happened.

Templates can come back and bite you.

erinbrockovich

---

EDITED

---

Thank you, I did think it was lacking in specifics. Yes I!!!8217;m still with my girlfriend (despite the tickets :rotfl:) so I asked her about it

I have pictures of the signs. Should I upload these for you guys to view or could it compromise my case in case of prying eyes? I will block out any telling details

I also emailed them last night as per Coupon-mad's advice. If they don't change the address and continue to issue the claim form to the wrong address, I will have to continue with the claim form as normal based at the wrong address yeah?

Quentin

Yes - if you do get a claim sent to the wrong address you must deal with it!

nosferatu1001

If you ignore the claim form then of course you will get a CCJ against you. That should be obvious!

System

So if it is a permit system, the "rules" are those when the permit is purchased - unless they refer to the ones on the sign. Clearly as it is not your permit, you will have to ask about the terms agreed when the permit was received. You have to be able to separate the issues.

In addition, it may be better to reveal the driver as the driver clearly has some sort of rights to park there and is not a trespasser. It is those rights you have to bottom,

Loadsofchildren123

Please read my Admiral thread.
It's very important to establish what the terms of parking were when she paid her deposit to her employer. The terms of parking would be those agreed between her and employer, the parking company at this stage is irrelevant.


Did your gf pay for the parking, or just the deposit?


Did she have to lodge her VRM?


In the case of Admiral, the contract was WITH ADMIRAL, not the parking co, and so it was argued that the parking co had no locus to enforce it or to introduce new terms afterwards (ie their stupid signs meant nothing). Also the intention of them monitoring the carpark was to stop non-employees parking there, not to target employees/genuine authorised parkers. The t&cs with Admiral made no mention of charges for failing to comply with them so, again, it was said that the parking co had no right to seek to impose a charge, whatever its stupid signs said. If she supplied her VRM then the clear implication is that this would lead to a cancellation of a ticket being put on the car (eg if the permit had fallen down/human error in scratching off the wrong day).


Also was the scratch card fit for purpose? how was it to be displayed?