Gladstone Claim Form with a twist

coynek

So I am about 4 hours in now I could make alot more points wonder if you could give me a review especially the POFA bit at the end.

thanks


Defence Statement
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed or at all
2. The Defendant previously successfully defended a similar claim in 2015 from the same claimant about the same location, and thus, the court is invited to exercise its discretion to strike this new claim out to save wasting the court's time and incurring costs on all sides when the matters under consideration have already been decided in claim!......... (res judicata!applies).!
2.1 Five months later, when prompting the Claimant to finally pay the Defendant's £97 costs as ordered, the Defendant also stated in their written communication - which will be adduced in evidence - that the Claimant must cease with any outstanding fines, since such harassment is unlawful and directly contradicts the terms of the tenancy. The Claimant is already aware that the Defendant/his visitors have the right to park a vehicle in bay H64 without suffering harassment and private nuisance in the form of the Claimant's predatory charges, which interfere with residents' peaceful enjoyment.
3 The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on!3rd March 2016. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates 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.
4 The Particulars refer to the material location as “The Eccleston - Cornhill Place / Stafford Gardens Arundal Square off Eccleston Road, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6QN.

---

There is no reference to The Eccleston on the land registry or as far as I’m aware my tenancy(just awaiting a copy as I have lost it). The NTK only references The Eccleston. Is this a valid point?---

The Defendant has , since ............ held legal title under the terms of a lease to Flat Number ......... Parking Bay H64.
4.1 The terms of the Tenancy entitle the the Defendant to the the quiet enjoyment of the property. There is no requirement within this contract to contractually engage with any private parking company or to adhere to any permit scheme.
4.2 Under the Defendant’s Tenancy lease a number of conditions are made in reference to parking motor vehicles: (4.7) “You and any person living in or visiting your home must not park a vehicle anywhere on our property except on a parking area so designated by the landlord.” (4.8) “you and any person living in or visiting your home must not park any vehicle on our property or land which is not taxed or not fit for regular lawful use on the public road.”
4.3 The Defendant’s lease states (4.16) the Landlord will give you possession of the property at the start of this Agreement and will not interrupt or interfere with your right to peaceful occupation of your home except when access is required for repairs, or where a court has given the Landlord possession or where you have surrendered you tenancy.
4.4 The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents. In this case the Claimant continues to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

5 The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.!

5.1 The Claimant is aware that the Vehicle in question was parked in the allocated bay (H64) and that vehicle by permission of the Landlord granted in the Shorthold Tenancy. This was conveyed in the form of a sign in the Vehicle’s window and a letter sent to the Claimant (section 2.1) of this Defence.

6 The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

7 The Claimant may rely on the case of!ParkingEye v Beavis![2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in!Beavis!does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from!Beavis!on the facts and circumstances.

8 The Claimant is pursuing the the charges alleged from the Defendant as the registered keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as per their Notice To Keeper which states PCN 971022 was issued to the Claimant’s vehicle on 3rd March 2016.

8.1 As per the Claimants own images no PCN or Notice to Driver was issued resulting in a complete breach of Paragraph 7 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Making the pursuant of charges from the Defendant as null and void.

8.2 As no Notice Driver was issued (as per Claimant’s own images in Notice to Keeper) the Claimant issued a Notice to Keeper on 5th April 2016, 33 days after alleged breach of parking terms as per particulars of claim Form way outside of the specified period of 14 days as per paragraph 4 & 5 of POFA 2012 below:

“(4)The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.”

Resulting in Claimant’s pursuant of the alleged charges from the Defendant as Registered Keeper not Liable.

coynek

My defence is below, cheers

Le_Kirk

It's just DEFENCE not DEFENCE STATEMENT and you need a statement of truth at the end.

coynek

Thanks I didnt know whether to carry on adding or whether this should be sufficient.
Is the way I have worded the last Popla references ok

coynek

added
4.1 The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper only refers to The Material Location ‘The Eccleston’. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such place, and this is confirmed Land Registry entry for the location in question. The first instance of the Location being paired with Stafford Gardens is the Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form. The Claimant therefore discloses no Cause of Action for their claim.

coynek

4.6 Any consideration flows from the landholder, in this case my landlord, who is the
leaseholder. I put the Claimant to strict proof of contractual authority from the landowner, on original documents containing their name and address, and written in their own words. 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 this case.

Coupon-mad

Arundal Square

Arundel (she says, coming from that area in Sussex!).

coynek

11) Furthermore the Claimants signs refer to Terms of parking without permission’, and suggest that parking without permission motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. Since there is no permission, there is no offer and therefore no contract.

coynek

I sent a SAR request to Gladstone's and it shows that they have shared information with Experian Ltd.
Surely this can't be right I have only had a claim form never any ccjs etc?

System

I sent a SAR request to Gladstone's and it shows that they have shared information with Experian Ltd. Surely this can't be right I have only had a claim form never any ccjs etc?

Does it matter. Technically you could challenge it IF they hadn't told the DVLA they would do this prior but it is a side issue.

These are mind numbingly simple cases in legal terms. If you clutter up a defence or Witness Statements with minor issues you will detract from what you are trying to say - which are the facts stated in #1 .....(I am a tenant and this is my bay)

Plenty of wins on that