Gladstone Claim - Help needed on Steps

facilitator999

My defence was covered really well by Gladstones, i was about to be asked to pay up by the judge. But I interrupted and argued using their own witness statement which showed a picture of a permit on my car. (note that I didnt know about this ticket as they didnt issue one on my car, and any letters ive recieved was ignored, gladstone provided the evidence that i needed but only before hearing)

I had a permit on my car, the judge wants me to put on the amended defence that a permit allowed me to park there, and on the witness statement show picture of the permit.

Please can you help me write this appropriately:

13. A valid ‘Any Vehicle’ Permit was displayed on my windscreen allowing my vehicle to park in Bridge Court which is within Virginia Quay.

Coupon-mad

Hang on, you've just been to a hearing and nearly lost, despite the evidence showing a permit? Is the Judge stupid? Why didn't he dismiss the claim on the spot?

facilitator999

1. Because it said Virginia Quay; which is correct, Bridge Court is within it; and she was not sure if it was. (my current permit also says Virginia Quay, as do all residents permit.)

2. because it was not in my original defence (hence she wants an ammended defence);

3) gladstones no show, couldnt defend. (please note 2 cases before me the defendents lost so she was on a role)

Coupon-mad

Terrible Judge, PPCs should almost never win. Which Court?

How long has she given you to amend your defence?

Show us what you plan to submit for it, before you do.

facilitator999

Submit Ammeded Defence by 4pm 15 March. Hearing was at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court

13. A valid ‘Any Vehicle’ Permit was displayed on my windscreen allowing my vehicle to park in Bridge Court which is within Virginia Quay.

Le_Kirk

Maybe you need some photos or at least maps of the area to show Bridge Court in relationship to Virginia Quay.

Coupon-mad

TWO DAYS?? The judge gave you TWO DAYS?

Show us your draft new defence then! I mean the ENTIRE Defence please, and your evidence photos attached, and the copy of your permit attached, and your proof that Bridge court is the same place (or whatever she needed to be satisfied about that you've so far failed to show).

Refer to that evidence in the new defence. You can't just throw a paragraph at it.
She was clearly a Judge looking for you to lose so you need evidence.

facilitator999

The two days is my fault, the hearing was 12 days ago

1. This is the original defence https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5883719/gladstone-claim-help-needed-on-steps#18

2. Add to the above defence Point 13. A valid ‘Any Vehicle’ Permit was displayed on my windscreen allowing my vehicle to park in Bridge Court which is within Virginia Quay, refer to site plan validating permit displayed.

3. On the Witness statement I will provide photograph and prove that Bridge Court (which is the exact location where ticket issued) is within Virginia Quay, (the only person disputing this point is the judge) My current permit also says Virginia Quay, its not a mistake its all correct.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/pQtzosJmmDDxqR5BA

https://photos.app.goo.gl/dSQrFGwe62k2pFg58 (site plan)

Coupon-mad

OK so your defence was very generic, not one we'd use now.

An amended defence should be the original one with most things crossed out, and the new stuff added near the end instead (but before the statement of truth and your fresh signature and date).

Strike out with a black line, the parts of the defence you do not want, then add to your defence in RED the parts you are adding or changing. Do it right, your Judge seems to be a stickler and will prefer it if you play the game as she expects to see it.

A lot of that old defence needs crossing out. Show us what you come up with as you now have less than 48 hours to take this to the court in person!

facilitator999

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxx
Between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(Claimant)
-and-

xxxxxx
(Defendant)

__________________________________________________ ________________________

AMENDED DEFENCE
__________________________________________________ _________________________

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 13 August 2018 by UK Car Park Management Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by UK Car Park Management Limited; as the Claimants Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

a. There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim under the Practice Direction.

b. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the Letter before County Court Claim should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to take stock, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

i. Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute

ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure

iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and

iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

c. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012). Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and when the notice was served, did not fully comply with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions:

The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled Parking Charge Notice which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.

Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that; However keeper information is obtained, there is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £248.93 for outstanding debt and damages. The additional costs, which the defendant contests have not been incurred, are none of its concern.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representatives costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that UK Car Park Management Limited has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £248.93 If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

[STRIKE]5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage contract, none of this applies in this material case.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case

a. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs

b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant

c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as compensation from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant
iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
v. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d. BPA CoP breaches this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract.
[/STRIKE]
7. No standing this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed UK Car Park Management Limited do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.!

8. The Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to have paid vague costs (legal fees or debt collectors). The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid.

9. The defendant wrote to the claimant on 18th August 2018 asking for:
a. Full particulars of the parking charges
b. Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management Ltd
c. The full legal identity of the landowner
d. A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park Management Ltd had their authority.
e. If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.

The claimant has not responded with any of the above information. As Gladstone’s are a firm of solicitors who’s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

10. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 13 August 2018.

11. The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

12. A valid ‘Any Vehicle’ Permit was displayed on my windscreen allowing my vehicle to park in Bridge Court which is within Virginia Quay, refer to site plan validating permit displayed.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.



XXXXXXX
13 March 2019