Gladstones claim form received

Ezisola

Here is the new version with suggested edits. Any feedback greatly appreciated and I will get it signed and emailed off

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 in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXX at XXXX Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

3. The Claimant has failed to issue a Letter Before Action, or provided any details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)”. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked'. The signage gave no requirement to display the valid parking permit.


7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle did not have a valid permit to be parked in that bay.

8. 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 need to stand directly in front of a dangerous access ramp with poor visibility. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

9. 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.

10. The Notice To Keeper does not specify the period of parking, as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Section 8 (2)(a)&(b) and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.

11. 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 given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

12. 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 Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Ezisola

Bump


Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Looks concise and has the facts you need to expand on later at WS and evidence stage.

KeithP

Ezisola, what is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Ezisola

KeithP wrote: »

Ezisola, what is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

13th August

Ezisola

I've just noticed in small print on the signage it mentions that the £100 charge is reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, however this discount is not mentioned on the NTK. Is this a POFA breach and should it be a seperate defence point?

nosferatu1001

No, it is not a POFA breach. They do not have to offer a discount to the keeper.

Ezisola

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

No, it is not a POFA breach. They do not have to offer a discount to the keeper.

Thanks, was worth considering anyway

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th August and the Acknowledgement of Service having been done in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th September 2018 to file your Defence.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print the Defence.
2) Sign it and date 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'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not, you should chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Ezisola

I have now recieved the Directions Questionnaire from the court (after Gladstones sent their copy & the usual rubbish about being heard on the papers).

I will respond using the points on Bargepole's guide. Should the completed form be posted back to the court or scanned & emailed over like the defence?

Secondly; I've seen in a few threads that is mentioned I should include a cover letter opposing the claimaints request. Here is a copy I found on another thread from awhile ago, is it still recommended?


Formal objection to the Claimant's ''REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION''.

The Claimant has informed the Defendant that it has proposed a hearing on the papers because it considers the matter to be relatively straightforward.
The Claimant also requests to transfer the hearing to the Claimant’s local court if the Defendant does not consent.
The Defendant objects strongly to these proposals.

The Defendant denies that the matter is relatively straightforward.

The issues in dispute include, the Claimant's defective Particulars of Claim, its failure to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act, its failure to follow IPC code with proper signage on the site, failure to show formation of legal contract and Claimant refusal of any correspondence sent by the Defendant.

As a litigant in person, the defendant would be seriously disadvantaged against the claimant, a parking company that has employed its trade association's solicitor to prepare its documents.
The defendant will probably also wish to question the claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents - which is not possible in a paper based hearing.

The defendant will in particular wish to verify that claimant has evidence to show it has followed proper procedures in sharing the particulars of claim, communicated decision on the earlier appeal, follows IPC guidelines to form a legal contract as well as legal standing on the issue given the defendant has a proof of VAT receipt for the vehicle for that particular date for use of the land and that its additional costs have actually been incurred and are not an attempt at double recovery.
The defendant also wishes to question the claimant regarding the basis of its cause of action that is not disclosed in the particulars of claim and its failure to reply to the defendant's appeal.

The defendant therefore requests that the matter is transferred to his local court in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules when the defendant is a consumer