Gladstone Solicitors Court Claim Received (HX Car Park Management)

System

If your main point is about signs, it's lost in that long defence. Do not talk about advertising consent, it has no legs in a defence IMHO.

Read the concise ones by bargepole that I've linked in the NEWBIES thread.

As above. Answer the question posed in the particulars of the claim. HX will have the advantage here as paying in a P&D car park is so well understood by the average person, that these tend to be rubber-stamped wins for HX.

What you have to be able to show from the start (at the beginning of the defence) is why the driver was unaware of the need to pay. That can only be due to lack of signs sufficient enough to indicate it was P&D.

throwawayflux

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Community.

If your main point is about signs, it's lost in that long defence. Do not talk about advertising consent, it has no legs in a defence IMHO.

Read the concise ones by bargepole that I've linked in the NEWBIES thread.

IamEmanresu wrote: »

As above. Answer the question posed in the particulars of the claim. HX will have the advantage here as paying in a P&D car park is so well understood by the average person, that these tend to be rubber-stamped wins for HX.

What you have to be able to show from the start (at the beginning of the defence) is why the driver was unaware of the need to pay. That can only be due to lack of signs sufficient enough to indicate it was P&D.

Thanks for your replies. I have reworded the defence as per below. I completely removed the Beavis point in an attempt to keep it brief - unless you think that was worth keeping in. I also addressed the signage first, and went on to address the particulars of claim afterwards.

I'd appreciate any feedback on this second draft. Thanks

---

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on 23/10/2017 at XXXX.

3. It is denied that the Claimant provided adequate signage that could have contractually bound the Defendant. The signage was attached to a street lamp which was not working, making it extremely hard to see in the dark. Further, the other light source in the car park was not working either, leaving the entire piece of land in darkness. This was still the case a few days later, when the parking ticket was received in the post, as the Defendant visited the car park to obtain photographic evidence, which is provided.

4. Prior to the Defendant’s visit, HX Car Park Management had only recently implemented a pay & display parking scheme at the site. This car park had previously been free to use for patrons of XXXX, and indeed had been used by the Defendant several times previously. The BPA Code of Practice v6 states at 18.11: “Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarize themselves with the changes”.

5. The lack of signage illumination is in breach of the Code of Practice for the International Parking Community (IPC), of which HX Car Park Management Ltd is a member.
a. IPC’s Code of Practice Part B paragraph 2.2 states “Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code”. Schedule 1 Part E states “If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge”.
b. Furthermore, IPC’s Code of Practice states “The colours used on signage should be such that the contrast between the background and the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible”. The photographic evidence provided shows that this is not the case on the signage provided.

6. The particulars of claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle XXXX. These assertions indicate 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 Further, the particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

7. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. There appears to be a conflict of interest between IPC and Gladstones Solicitors Ltd which calls into question the independence and legitimacy of IPC’s Independent Appeals Service (IAS). This is important as rejected IAS claims are passed to Gladstones Solicitors Ltd for legal action, which generates revenue. William Hurley and John Davies were both directors of United Trade and Industry Ltd t/a International Parking Committee (IPC) and Gladstones Solicitors Ltd until 28th May 2017, when William Hurley resigned from Gladstones Solicitors Ltd and John Davies resigned from United Trade and Industry Ltd. The Defendant presumes these resignations on the same day were an attempt to rectify this clear conflict of interest, however serious concerns remain about the true independence provided by IPC’s appeals service. Indeed, both William Hurley and John Davies remain as directors of Patron Hallow Ltd, so a working relationship remains.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

I would replace #8 (which isn't about the claim) with the usual point found in bargepole defences, about the PPC not being the landowner or having authority to make contracts/litigate in their own name, especially given they appear to have treated the driver as if this was a matter of trespass which is only open to a landowner to pursue loss (not a parking firm to dress it up as contract for a 3 figure sum).

photographic evidence, which is provided.

not yet it isn't, evidence comes at WS and evidence stage, later on. The defence is a single document sent to the CCBCAQ email address.

See the NEWBIES thread for what happens and when, set out by bargepole.

The_Deep

I would keep paragraph 8 in. When dealing with a scammer you need to throw as much mud as you can, let the judge know that they are not John Lewis.

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.

System

Edit: Wrong thread.

Coupon-mad

Good plan, check it first OP, but do not overlook the point in defence if there is some scope to use it.

throwawayflux

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would replace #8 (which isn't about the claim) with the usual point found in bargepole defences, about the PPC not being the landowner or having authority to make contracts/litigate in their own name, especially given they appear to have treated the driver as if this was a matter of trespass which is only open to a landowner to pursue loss (not a parking firm to dress it up as contract for a 3 figure sum).

not yet it isn't, evidence comes at WS and evidence stage, later on. The defence is a single document sent to the CCBCAQ email address.

See the NEWBIES thread for what happens and when, set out by bargepole.

Thanks. I have included this paragraph:

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against patrons of XXXX. If the Claimant wishes to treat this as a matter of trespass, then this is only open to the landowner to pursue its loss.

The_Deep wrote: »

I would keep paragraph 8 in. When dealing with a scammer you need to throw as much mud as you can, let the judge know that they are not John Lewis.

I will keep it in for now then.

throwawayflux

KeithP wrote: »

throwawayflux, what is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

It was dated 05/09/18, so I have until 03/10/18 (ie the day after tomorrow) to file my defence unless I'm mistaken.

nosferatu1001

33 days from date of issue, as they allow 5 days usually or service. Calendar days.

Coupon-mad

But people who push it that close, risk the CCBC not updating MCOL quick enough, and some have reported having to unpick a nasty shock of a default CCJ.

On balance (defences & POPLA appeals) I don't think we should tell people 33 days.