Gladstone Solicitors Court Claim Received (HX Car Park Management)

throwawayflux

Thanks, I plan to submit it by tomorrow in any case if my defence is finalised by then.

I think I must be pretty close now but will wait to see if there are any further comments today first. I have removed the bit about photographic evidence being provided.

KeithP

throwawayflux wrote: »

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.

Sorry, you are mistaken. You have a few more days than you thought.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th September, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's that's still a week away, but as has already been said, don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your 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 chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out what to do with it.

throwawayflux

My final draft is below, which I will submit today.

---

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.

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. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

KeithP

Why is the first sentence of paragraph 10 there?

It is clear that the Defendant is the driver, so any mention of a "maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper" is irrelevant.

My suggestion is that you keep the second sentence of that para and make the point more prominently.

Usmanshafi02

Hi, i am in kind of same situation, just wanted to know what happened to your case, did u win?

throwawayflux

Hi all, sorry for the lack of updates. Since my last post, my case has been allocated to my local County Court, the Claimant has paid the trial fee, and the court date is set for 21 March 2019 at 10am.

I understand I must now submit my evidence to the Court by 7th March, and I will be including the photos I took of the signage/car park the day after the event as well as the other recommended bits in the newbies thread (a copy of the Beavis case, any other case transcripts which support me).

I will post my witness statement for feedback once I have written it in the next few days.

Coupon-mad

Glad to hear you are on track and keeping to your deadlines.

If you get the other side's WS & evidence this week, please scan it & show us.

throwawayflux

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Glad to hear you are on track and keeping to your deadlines.

If you get the other side's WS & evidence this week, please scan it & show us.

Only just! I've left it a bit late as only have a couple of days left to submit my witness statements, so am starting to feel the heat...

I received the claimant's witness statement bundle at the weekend which can be viewed here: https://docdro.id/Dtc7yMF. I haven't attached the countless other articles such as copies of their contracts, signs, etc, but can do so if you'd like.

I've had a read through and have some comments:

- I obviously disagree with points 5 + 6 that the signage was clear and visible, and believe my photos prove otherwise. They reference the fact that I said the street lamps weren't working in point 24, but state that my headlights should have illuminated the sign (this is not true and the sign is about 15 ft up.

- They seem to include a load of generic defences/points which aren't relevant, see points 8 through to 11. I have never claimed that I wasn't driving the vehicle. I acknowledged that I was during my IPC appeal, and never claimed otherwise in my defence statement.

- There are further generic points in 25 + 26 regarding their authority to enforce charges - I've never questioned this.

I'm going to crack on with my witness statement tonight and would greatly appreciate any comments on theirs and how I should word my rebuttals.

Thanks

throwawayflux

Oh and another thing. When Gladstones sent me the WS bundle by email, they said this:

The assumption is that our Client is not attending the hearing and therefore we kindly request this notice be treated as a notice pursuant to CPR 27.9. However on some occasions our Client may wish to attend and will do so.

Does this mean there will be nobody from their side present at all, or simply that it'll be a legal representative in their place?

throwawayflux

Ok I have written a draft Witness Statement and would appreciate comments. I originally wrote something a lot longer and more wordy, but saw recommendations to make them more concise and factual, which I have now attempted to do.

I haven't quoted any case law - is that a bad thing?

1. I am XXX, of XXX, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On XXX, I visited XXX and parked my vehicle registration no. XXX in the car park.

3. I had previously visited XXX many times over the years, and had always used the car park, which was free for patrons of the attraction. When visiting on 23rd October 2017, I had no reason to believe that a pay-to-park scheme had recently been introduced and was therefore understandably shocked and confused when I received a parking charge notice in the post a few days later.

4. Whilst visiting the car park to investigate on the day that I received the PCN, 28th October 2017, it became obvious that the signage was wholly inadequate and not illuminated at all, which must have been why I had not noticed it on 23rd October 2017. Evidence of the poor signage and lack of illumination in the car park is shown in the photos attached, Exhibits A + B. This is in contravention of the Code of Practice Part B, paragraph 2.2 (Exhibit C), issued by IPC, of which the claimant is a member.

5. As the car park was previously free to use, the British Parking Association Code of Practice v6 18.11 recommends that a grace period is provided to allow regular visitors of the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes – see Exhibit D.

6. With the above in mind, I submitted appeals to both the claimant and subsequently the IPC, both of which were rejected, and my claim was passed to Gladstones Solicitors. Upon researching online and looking at Companies House, it became apparent that there was a conflict of interest as, until recently, the same two individuals had been directors of both IPC and Gladstones Solicitors. Thus, any rejected appeals that were passed to Gladstones Solicitors would generate further revenue for the two individuals concerned. Both directors had recently resigned from one of the companies each, presumably in an attempt to circumvent this conflict of interest, but it seems reasonable to assume that a conflict remains.

7. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.