N1SDT Claim Form from UK CPM/Gladstones

SPN

I received the form on the 15th of August (It was dated the 14th August) and I filled in the AOS online that night before I went on holiday.

Now I'm back I've looked through many threads on here and put together the following Defence, if possible I'd like some advice on what I've written as I'm still finding much of it confusing.

The claim relates to two parking charges from 2016 where the vehicle was parked at the flats where I live.

If I could get any advice on what I've put together below that would be great.

Thanks

SPN

Statement of Defence

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Uk Car Park Management v ___

DEFENCE


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.


Background

3) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of the vehicle in question.

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) It is admitted that the Defendant parked the vehicle on the material date, whilst residing at the private residential property. 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.


Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

7) It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park, in circumstances where the Lease/Tenancy Agreement does permit the parking of vehicle(s) on this land. The Defendant avers that there was at the very least, a prior and overriding grant of a licence to park, and indeed believes there was an absolute entitlement to park, deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide residents with the right to park a vehicle on this private land, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or any reference to any 'undesignated bays'.

8) It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

9) The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:

(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
(ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
(iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and/or start charging for them.

9.1 Parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. 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.


No contract and no breach

10) The Defendants residence has no direct access to the street and can only be accessed via the courtyard, the Defendant has a letter from their housing association who confirmed with the landowner’s management company that because of this the Defendant is entitled to park legitimately in the courtyard when loading and unloading their vehicle.

11) When these charges took place the Claimant had only just taken over managing the parking restrictions on site and began a predatory parking regime targeting residents and has unilaterally attempted to foist upon residents a change of rules, in complete disregard to any existing rights and grants; the Claimant being a stranger to the various residents' Agreements. No variation of residents' Agreements has taken place and any such variation would be solely a matter between the landowner and the resident, in any case.


12) There is no site plan of bays in existence for the communal courtyard (the Defendant has checked with the site Managing Agents). If such a plan now exists, the Claimant is put to strict proof of its origin and on what basis/on whose authority has been decided after many years of normal use by residents, and how this change of use was communicated to residents and/or agreed.

15) The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been parking in that space for years and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.

16) It is denied that there was any breach of contract or of any relevant parking terms. The Claimant's claim is wholly misconceived.


In the Alternative: Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished

17) The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a site of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

17.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
17.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
17.1.2. 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
17.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

17.2. 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. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.

17.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.


Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

18) 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).

19) 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.

20) 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).

21) 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.

22) 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.


I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


Signed

Date

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th 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.

Coupon-mad

That one is a bit long, IMHO.

I'd go with an adapted version of bargepole's more concise residential defence. There is a version here that I adapted from bargepole's suggested template:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74708527#Comment_74708527

or amalgamate the two, your version with that, and cut out repetition.

SPN

Hi,

I submitted my defence on Monday morning as instructed and just logged in to check to see if it says defended but it says

"A judgment was issued against you on 19/09/2018 at 19:09:12"

What does that mean, have i lost?

Thanks,

SPN

KeithP

Do you have proof, i.e. the automatic email acknowledgement, that your Defence was sent before 4pm on 17th September?

SPN

Yes the auto responder email was sent Mon, Sep 17, 11:42 AM

KeithP

Ring the CCBC, but be prepared to wait some time for them to answer.


We have seen this before. Quite recently.

SPN

Thanks, I called and they say it should be fixed and updated tomorrow.

Coupon-mad

SPN wrote: »

Hi,

I submitted my defence on Monday morning as instructed and just logged in to check to see if it says defended but it says

"A judgment was issued against you on 19/09/2018 at 19:09:12"

What does that mean, have i lost?

Thanks,

SPN

Do what Kas22 did, same situation (CCBC's fault, they need to set aside that order):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74544834#Comment_74544834

HTH, do not be told by the CCBC that you have to pay to set their error aside!

SPN

They said it had been passed to a manager and they would put it in front of a judge to ammend.

System

Why did it take so long for you to send in your defence? When it was sent, was it sent before 4:00pm or after.

You may be unlucky with this, if it was after the court closed.