CCBC Form received for UKCPM/Gladstones

FTB_Peter

Bundle all sorted and I’ve also received theirs. Just the actual court date to go now, I’m getting nervous! Should I be doing anything in the meantime? Preparing costs etc.

Umkomaas

Cost schedule preparation - email a copy to court, the claimant and solicitors a couple of days before the hearing. Take payslips to justify your loss of earnings/loss of annual leave (capped, unfortunately, at £95 for half a day only).

Skeleton Argument (just a crib sheet of the points you need/want to cover at the actual hearing, to make sure you don't overlook anything major while feeling some stress on the day).

KeithP

FTB_Peter wrote: »

I’m getting nervous!

Have a look at this short video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

FTB_Peter

Are there any templates available for costs and skeleton arguments? I'm assuming the SA is just bullet points from my defense?

Le_Kirk

FTB_Peter wrote: »

Are there any templates available for costs and skeleton arguments? I'm assuming the SA is just bullet points from my defense?

Costs Schedule - Found THIS by searching the NEWBIE section.
Skeleton Arguments - Found THIS also by searching. Scroll down to here: -

Here is a case where I separated the 2 documents into Witness Statement (the facts about letters received, etc.) and the skeleton (legal argument):

FTB_Peter

Thanks for the pointers. I am increasingly concerned I may not win! Reading through their bundle they have included some agreement from the land owners to act on their behalf so I will need to rely on other factors (estoppel, no agreed contract, no parking for non permit holders, no mention on signs of entering into a contract, no signs on the entrance, no visible bays etc etc).

Coupon-mad

Don't be put off by their drivel.

FTB_Peter

OK, costs schedule sorted and I'm working through my SA as we speak. Same problem as before though in that I do have email address for GS or UKCPM?


Also, as I'm currently in the middle of a messy divorce and only have a selection of the clothes I own, I have no shirt, tie or trousers. Is it worth investing in new or is smart/casual acceptable?

KeithP

FTB_Peter wrote: »

OK, costs schedule sorted and I'm working through my SA as we speak. Same problem as before though in that I do have email address for GS or UKCPM?

Gladstones email address is repeated time and time again on this board.

FTB_Peter wrote: »

Also, as I'm currently in the middle of a messy divorce and only have a selection of the clothes I own, I have no shirt, tie or trousers. Is it worth investing in new or is smart/casual acceptable?

Crikey!!

How much further away from parking can questions on this board get?

It's often said... dress as if you are going for a job interview.

FTB_Peter

OK final(?) draft of my SA, all input is welcome as my head is beginning to spin! (numbering has lost formatting through copy & paste).

The original PCN posted by this Claimant states a Full Charge of £100.00 however the Claimant's legal firm now inflates these sums, in a deliberate or negligent attempt at double recovery:
(a) Principal debt £100.00
(b) Claimant’s losses through non-payment £60.00
(c) Interest £30.43
(d) Solicitors fee’s £50.00
(e) Court fee £25.00
(f) Outstanding balance to pay now £265.43
1. It is clear that no checks have been made as to the facts of the alleged contract, signs or parking charge, in this Claimant's undue haste to issue robo-claims in their thousands, scraping the barrel of archive cases to bring to court, under excuse of jumping on the bandwagon started by the (completely different and complex) case in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case').

• The Beavis case at 96, draws attention to the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association ('the BPA'). And at 111 the Judge helpfully comments that “while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.”
  THE BEAVIS CASE IS APPENDED AS EVIDENCE E.1
  
  
• The Code sets out how and in what circumstances a term may be enforced. It states: “All Approved Operator Scheme members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.” Broadly, the Code of Practice obliges the Claimant to comply with the law in creating and in enforcing its contract with a motorist and in communicating the terms of that contract. The Claimant failed to do so in several respects.
  BPA CoP 2015 IS APPENDED AS EVIDENCE E.2
  
  
• The Court’s attention has been drawn to the failure of the Claimant to ensure that the relevant legislation had been complied with, thereby resulting in criminal conduct in their operation of parking enforcement by -
  (a) Entrance signs to the parking area must be in place. This is not the case when entering the parking area through the only entrance. B18.2
  (b) Any telephone lines provided for motorists to respond to complaints, challenges and appeals must not be charged above the basic rate. The provided telephone number is clearly a premium rate 0845 number. B18.7
  (c) Appendix B states that the blue rectangle with the ‘P’ symbol can be left out if public parking is not invited as this is synonymous with parking for the general public being available.

These comprise three clear breaches of the BPA Code of Practice.

• In any event, the Claimant fails to fulfil the requirements of CPR16.2 for Particulars of Claim in that they have neglected to set out any facts or state what it is they are claiming monies for. Their typically sparse Particulars of Claim state "…incurred parking charge(s) for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Bancroft" and do not say whether the sum is due as a contractual sum, damages for breach of contract or money due for something else, such as a liability for a failure of duty of care or trespass under common law tort.

• Furthermore it is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. The Claimant is put to strict proof that Little Rascals Indoor Play & Party Centre were not authorised to allow visiting families to park on a Saturday, since I relied upon that promise in good faith.

• The Claimant has provided, as part of their Witness Statement, an agreement with The Hitchin Property Trust Ltd which gives the Claimant “authority to operate a parking charge enforcement service on the specified land” from the commencement date (2nd November 2015). The agreement appears to have been drafted by the Claimant and therefore must be subject to the “contra proferentum” rule and open to interpretation. This agreement merely authorises the Claimant to “operate a parking charge enforcement service” which is quite different from “entering into a contract with the driver”. The Claimant is not given the power to solely authorise parking, as this is restricted to permit holders only, of which there is no mention in either the agreement or on the displayed signage of where said permits are available from, entering into the doctrine of impossibility of performance. A similar tactic was highlighted in PACE v Lengyel (2017) which was dismissed by District Judge Iyer.
  PACE V LENGYEL IS APPENDED AS EVIDENCE E.3
  
  
  
  
• The Court’s attention is also drawn to the fact that the land in question has the benefit of the rights granted by but is subject to the rights reserved by a Conveyence dated 29th September 1960 made between (1) Moss’s (Bancroft) Limited and (2) Keysheath Investment Company Limited as stated on the Official copy of register of title and Official copy of title plan, not Hitchin Property Trust Ltd.
  OFFICIAL COPY OF REGISTER OF TITLE APPENDED AS EVIDENCE E.4, OFFICIAL COPY OF TITLE PLAN APPENDED AS EVIDENCE E.5

• It is contended that the signs that were in place at the location were unclear and wordy, yet with the actual 'parking charge' buried in small print, thus being incapable of forming a contract.

• My case can be distinguished from the Beavis case, which was dependent upon Mr Beavis being the driver who accepted a clear contract, formed by unusually prominent signage. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice and the clear, prominent terms on brief signs was held to be paramount. None of this applies in this material case.
  
  
• In the Claimant’s Witness Statement, item 5 states drivers are to “park wholly within a marked bay…” yet no designated bays are visible in either Defendant’s, or in fact Claimant’s, photographs.
  
  
• The Claimant has quoted Elliot v Loake 1983 in their Witness Statement. The Claimant cannot rely on EvL to claim that the driver and the keeper can be 'assumed' to be the same, since this was a criminal case and referred to the owner, not the keeper. In any event, in EvL there was overwhelming forensic evidence from other sources that the defendant was the driver at the time. By contrast, in my case this Claimant has not offered any evidence to the driver's identity and cannot make any lawful assumption.
  ELLIOT V LOAKE IS APPENDED AS EVIDENCE E.6
• It is noted that in view of all of the above, the Court could decide of its own volition to strike this claim out under CPR 16.4 and as an unrepresented Defendant I ask the presiding Judge to use their case management powers and relieve me of the burden of having to appear to defend myself as registered keeper, in view of the Claimant having supplied no evidence of any basis for a claim against me in law.
  
  
  I believe that the facts stated in this Skeleton Defence are true.
  
  
  
  Signed:
  
  
  
  Date: