N1SDT Claim Form Recieved - No communication up to this point

Denji11

Hi,

A claim form has been recieved through Gladstone Solicitors with the Claimant being UK Car Parking Management. Up to this point no communication has been held between the defendant and either firm.

After reading section 2 of newbies post it is understood that an acknowledgement of service should be made with intention to defend all of the claim. Has the defendant shot themselves in the foot at all here by not having any communication to this point ?

Background to the PCN:

Date of issue was 02/06/18, after working hours. Location was outside an accountancy shop which was closed, UKCPM sign was relatively small and particularly difficult to notice espeically as the vehicle was a motorcylce and the driver would have intially had a helmet on.

Thanks for any help!

nosferatu1001

We do not know who the driver is
Neither does the parking firm

The DEFENDANT is likely to be the vehicles REGISTERED KEEPER. Confirm if this is true

We do not want to know if the driver and RK are the same or different people.

When you say "no communication" do yo umean no letters were received? No LBC? No PCN?

If you want to upload anything, BREAK THE LINKS, so replace HTTP with HXXP. Dont make it harder than that for us.

KeithP

Is the address on the motorcycle's V5c for the registered keeper correct?

Denji11

The defendant is the vehicles registered keeper.

No communication meaning from the defendant to either firm. The defendent has recieved multiple PCN's, Debt collection letters, an LBC and now a Claim Form.


hxxps://ibb.co/hV7Rvp
hxxps://ibb.co/db8Yap

KeithP

So to put it another way "the registered keeper has so far ignored all correspondence".

The Defendant must not ignore the Claim Form.

Go to post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out how to deal with it.

Hint: the first thing to do is the Acknowledgement of Service.

What is the Date of Issue on the Claim Form?

nosferatu1001

So if you want to defend as keeper you DO need to edit the above. Its pretty obvious who the driver is. SPend two minutes thinking about it if youre not sure, but your question on defending leads to a single identity for the driver.

https://ibb.co/hV7Rvp
https://ibb.co/db8Yap

Denji11

The date of the claim form is yesterday 14/08.

nosferatu1001

So you now know when the defence must be received by.

Denji11

Yes the defendant is currently putting this toghether.

Thanks thus far

Denji11

Hi All

An initial draft of the defence for the defendant can be seen below. If anyone could review and point in the right direction of what to keep/remove/add etc it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

Preliminary
1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
1.1 !!!8220;If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the !!!8216;Creditor!!!8217; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner!!!8217;s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.!!!8221;

2. 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. Inadequate signage details no parking outside of a designated area / parking bay - yet none are defined. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is !!!8216;roboclaims!!!8217; and as such is against the public interest.
Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

2.1 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of
claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
2.2 those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example !!!8216;Money
owed £1000!!!8217;,
2.3 those which are incoherent and make no sense,
2.4 those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant


3. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

3.1 I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the
Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by
their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
3.2 There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction.

3.3 This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of draft particulars. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

3.4 The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.
Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
incident.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
ascertained.
1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2. 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.
3. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or
clear/prominent signage.

(2). The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.
1. The Claimant has disclosed no specific cause of action to give rise to any debt.
2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the
Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action
which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states !!!8220;parking charges!!!8221; which does not give any indication of on what basis
the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
exchange of information.
5. The claimant!!!8217;s inadequate signage detailed information which was not true as of the private parking area where the charge was incurred.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
6. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
Albans County Court without a hearing due to their !!!8216;roboclaim!!!8217; particulars being
incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and !!!8216;providing no facts that could
give rise to any apparent claim in law.!!!8217;
a) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 !!!8211; 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
struck out.

(3). The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
1. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

(4). UK Car Park Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. 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 rights to bring action regarding this claim.
1. 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.
2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
3. 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

(5) .
1. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100
to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an
attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
2. 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.

(6). The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
difficult to read, particularly through a motorcycle helmet.
2. The sign is in such a position that would have easily have been blocked by another vehicle which was in fact present when the defendant!!!8217;s vehicle was parked.
3. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to !!!8216;validly display!!!8217; the ticket in the
windscreen, this is again in particular for a motorcycle, therefore there was no breach of any !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; or !!!8216;relevant
contract!!!8217; as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
3. 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.
4. The signage displayed information which was incorrect of the private parking area being managed by the claimant.

(7) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established.
The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand
of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract
been properly displayed and accessible.

(8)
1. 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)
2. 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 sign.
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.
2. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
3. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs
to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
4. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
5. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative costs" not "contractual costs".
CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

(9). 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.

(10). 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.

(11). 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''.

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

Coupon-mad

DEFENCE [STRIKE]statement[/STRIKE]
____________________

I believe the facts contained in this Defence [STRIKE]Statement[/STRIKE] are true.

Not 'statement'.

You need to start with the facts of what happened, like you said below:

Date of issue was 02/06/18, after working hours. Location was outside an accountancy shop which was closed, UKCPM sign was relatively small and particularly difficult to notice espeically as the vehicle was a motorcylce and the driver would have intially had a helmet on.

That should be the first point of defence, and as your are a Motorbike rider (in this instance, not a car driver) I would actually defend as rider, not hide behind registered keeper, and I doubt there are lots of potential riders of your bike and the Judge will think the same. And UKCPM use the POFA anyway so there is no advantage in relying on defence points about POFA (remove them).