Claim Form UK CPM/Gladstones

dankoff

Hi MSE team,

Today I received a Claim Form from Northampton CCBC for a claim made against me by UK Car Park Management Limited for 2 parking charges incurred on 31/08/16 and 02/09/16. Long story short, I visited my parents' flat at the time, 2 years ago, and had parked on a bay (I cannot recall if it was my my parents' designated bay or another one) and got 2 tickets from UK CPM Limited. It was a residential block of flats car park and it was on a car that I no longer have where I was the registered keeper, I suppose that's where they've got my details from. Having briefly read at the time to ignore letters from PPCs and debt collector agencies threatening with court action, I did not do anything. Now that I received this claim form form the county court, I feel a little nervous and I know I need to take action.

I read on the newbie forum thread what to do and have already done the first step to acknowledge the claim on MCOL website.

What would be my next course of action now? Should I start preparing my defence now and post it here for people to critique? Do you think there is a chance for me to win in these circumstances?

If it helps, here is some info about the claim:

Claimant - UK Car Park Management Limited
I believe Gladstones Solicitors are their legal representatives as they ask for documents and paymets to be sent to them.
They are claiming £320 for parking charges + £47.81 interest "pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.07 per day"... + £35.00 court fee and £50.00 legal representative's costs, totaling £452.81.

Issue Date - 14/08/2018

I would really appreciate any help with this.

Thanks in advance.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue date of 14th August and the AoS already done you have until 4pm on Monday 17th September 2018 to file your Defence.

That's over a month away.
Should be plenty of time to compile your Defence and hone it to perfection.

Post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread contains comprehensive guidance on how to do that.

Coupon-mad

Do you think there is a chance for me to win in these circumstances?

I didn't even read the circs. We win 99% of defended claims, so YES.

There is a pre-written example defence for residential cases in the sticky thread, so not sure what else you need. UKCPM cases are won here all the time, week in, week out.

System

I cannot recall if it was my my parents' designated bay or another one

You might want to ask UKCPM for pics of the car in situ and then decide if it was in your parent's bay or someone else's.

A lease may allow visitors to use your parent's bay - but not someone else's. At this stage you should be gathering as many facts as possible and not guessing or throwing a template at it that turns out to be irrelevant when the facts become known.

You main issue is that the claim form has started the clock and UKCPM know that their reply will be AFTER you have to send in a defence, so the sooner you start remembering the better.

dankoff

Thanks for all your replies. @IamEmanresu it was a long time ago and I cannot 100% remember. Does that make it difficult for me to defend against? I will start drafting my defence soon and post it here for people to opine.

The_Deep

Do you think there is a chance for me to win in these circumstances?

As almost every claim is a scam, (many of these companies are ex-clampers), it is very likely, as long as you follow the correct procedures and timelines. Gladstones file 1,000s of these claims a year, they are known as roboclaims, most opf which they lose. Google "You've been Gladsoned"

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.





ne \G;

Coupon-mad

dankoff wrote: »

Thanks for all your replies. @IamEmanresu it was a long time ago and I cannot 100% remember but I think it was xxxxxxxxx.

Does that make it difficult for me to defend against? I will start drafting my defence soon and post it here for people to opine.

Please edit that out, like I have.

It is for UKCPM to prove which bay was used and that a contractual charge was properly and prominently signed and that the driver agreed to the terms.

System

Yes it will make it difficult as if UKCPM can prove

* they have the authority to manage the space (IPC Code Of Practice B.1.1 - Authority to operate) and

* the signs identify the space were clear (IPC Code Of Practice B.2.1/B.2.2 - Form of the signs) and

* there was a justification/legitimate interest in having the scheme (ParkingEye v Beavis)

then you'll be scraping around for a defence which is no more than a bare denial.

You can of course help yourself to one of the many "spray and pray" templates about but bare in mind a judge will be looking at the facts of the case.

Coupon-mad

But you will still probably win anyway so don't take that fair warning to mean it's not worth defending, because it always is. Gladstones and UKCPM will have done no checks or prep for this case, and the evidence is often wanting even at hearing stage.

dankoff

Hi guys,


Here is the first draft of my statement of defence. I used Johnersh's template and some of Coupon-mad's defence from another forum to compile it. Please let me know what you think and if there is anything that needs to be added/removed/rearranged as it is my first attempt ever. I have until Monday, 17th September to submit it. I really appreciate your input and advice.


[FONT=&quot]Statement of Defence

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXX

Between:

Uk Car Park Management v XXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

1.1 The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

1.2 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

2.1 The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

2.2 The Defendant has discovered that the Claimant's Trade Body, the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), is an organisation operated by the same Directors as are/were recorded at Gladstones Solicitors, at least until very recently. They - John Davies and Will Hurley - are also responsible for the IAS.

2.3 Now the Defendant notes that Gladstones are employed in bringing this claim, demonstrating a clear conflict of interests.

Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. It is admitted that the Defendant's vehicle was parked on the material dates at the material location. It is denied that there was any relevant obligation upon the Defendant that can have been breached. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
5. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
6. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
6.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
6.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
6.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
6.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

6.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
7. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier, whose lease/tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease/tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease/tenancy agreement terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle or the user of the vehicle.

8. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease/tenancy agreement. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

9. Accordingly it is denied that:
9.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
9.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms – ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished
10. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
10.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
10.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
10.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
10.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
10.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10.3 The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.

11. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

12. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

13. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

14. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

15. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

16. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

17. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

18. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.[/FONT]

KeithP

dankoff wrote: »

Here is the first draft of my statement of defence.

First draft??

What has happened in the last four weeks?

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

1) Print your 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 chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.