Gladstone solicitors letter

Coupon-mad

Should I fill out the AOS Straight away or should I wait to give me more time to write a defence?

The date you do the AOS doesn't affect the defence deadline at all.

You can mention the conduct of the Claimant later in her WS . It is your wife who will be signing this defence, not you, as she is the D. Also the AOS must of course be done by the D, not you (just checking - you would be amazed that people actually get this wrong).

Anyway, seems to me this is a perfect time - do the AOS, then enjoy your hols & come back refreshed to do that defence. Would have been worse if the Claim had arrived the day before you left!

IainR2

I have updated my wife's defence and plan to submit it this week. Any comments or feedback would be appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN).
2. It is admitted that on xxx, the date of the alleged infringement, the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxx which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle entered the parking space clearly marked as “BAR PARKING” in order to avoid entering a taxi only lane at the front of Newcastle train station.
3. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

a.The Defendant denies that the driver would have had time to enter into a contract with the claimant during the limited time in which the driver enter the parking bay.
b. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the parking charge of £100 or agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been legally binding and properly displayed and accessible to a driver.
c. The signs which are visible in the parking bay are contradictory and would require the driver to exit the vehicle and read each one individually to form any judgement on what was being agreed to. The defendant did not leave the vehicle or have time to do this whilst in the parking bay.
d The Defendant denies that the signs at this location meet the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are 'bound to be seen', as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver any terms relating to a parking contract would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were 'bound to see' the terms.
e. The alleged contract does not permit parking to unauthorised vehicles, there is no consideration on the part of both parties.
f. The alleged contract does not permit parking, but states a parking charge of £100, which is contradictory and confusing.
g. The alleged contract does not give any information on how to obtain a permit.


4. 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.

5. 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.
The defendant would like to draw attention to the recent case regarding this additional an unexplained extra fee.
Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

IT IS ORDERED THAT
The claim is struck out as an abuse of process

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover,

This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the civil procedure rules 1998 "

6. 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. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Le_Kirk

You need to make it clear that you are QUOTING from that recent case, as it looks like you are giving an instruction to the court.

IainR2

Hi everyone, defence has now been filled and acknowledged by the court.


But just had another letter from Gladstone's saying they have elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably!!?? They sent me a copy of the form they sent to the court.


Can someone please confirm that I should just ignore this? I am guessing they are not offering to amicably "Get Stuffed!", which I would happily accept..

Le_Kirk

I assume it is the DQ you have received. You can ignore it and wait for your own DQ or alternatively download and complete one of your own. See point 8, post 31.

Coupon-mad

IainR2 wrote: »

Hi everyone, defence has now been filled and acknowledged by the court.


But just had another letter from Gladstone's saying they have elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably!!?? They sent me a copy of the form they sent to the court.


Can someone please confirm that I should just ignore this? I am guessing they are not offering to amicably "Get Stuffed!", which I would happily accept..

Why not just re-read bargepole's COURT PROCEDURES thread linked in the NEWBIES thread? We just don't have time to do this for everyone's case when the same old letters arrive that are already covered in the sticky thread.

You will be grateful we are this strict about our time, when you really need us to reply to you with advice - which is NOT until your WS & evidence stage.

IainR2

Finally received notification of allocation to the small claims court. I have now read numerous witness statements posted on this site with the aim of submitting the best I can. As the case seems so black and white to me I have tried to keep it simple to ensure that the point I am trying to get across is clear. Any feedback or constructive criticism would be gratefully received. I have avoid as much of the legal stuff as possible as I am not a solicitor, but also know that some submissions cover every possible variable.




In the County Court at XXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)
and
XXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

I am XX, of [Address], [Postcode], the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked AB* to which I will refer.

• Before I describe what happened on the day I arrived at the Newcastle train station, I confirm that the essence of my defense to this claim is that

• I did not have time to enter into a contract with the claimant.
• I would never have agreed to pay £100 or agreed to the terms and conditions of the contract if I had been made aware of them.
• The signs visible from the parking bay are contradictory and would have required me to leave the vehicle and be allowed a reasonable amount of time to understand what was being agree to.
• The claimant has inflated the original charge in an attempt to deliberately or negligent attempt at quadruple recovery:

• On the 19/05/2017 I visited Newcastle train station with the intention of collecting some train tickets. I live 10 miles from the center of Newcastle and I am reasonably aware of the road layout and places to park. On arrival at the train station I entered the main road which runs directly in front of the train stations main entrance. Upon entering it was brought to my attention that the road layout had recently changed, and the lane was now designated as Taxi’s only. At the time the area was very busy, and several taxis had begun to line up behind my car waiting to enter the station. At this point it is fair to say I became flustered and needed to find a way of turning the car around to exit the taxi lane.
• The attached pictures ref:- AB1 shows the two parking bays which are located just before the taxi lane into which I had inadvertently entered. I pulled the car into the parking bay clearly marked “BAR” to allow the taxis to pass into the station, this would then allow me time to turn the car around and exit back onto the main road.
• It was at this point that someone who I later described to a friend as a “Homeless person” proceed to stand behind the car and blocked my exit. I had no idea what this man was doing but remember wondering why he was acting suspiciously and why he was preventing the car from backing out of the space. I waited in the car until he had moved on, reversed the car and exited the parking bay the same way I entered.
• On the 26th May 2017 I received a parking charge notice from UK Car Park Management saying I was subject to a parking charge. It was at this point I realized that the man acting suspiciously on the day who prevented me from exiting the bay was working on behalf of UK Car Park Management.
• Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I replied to all correspondence from then within the time scales they have insisted on. I have repeatably asked that they exercise common sense to this matter. In the interim 2 and a half years I have been bombarded with increasingly threating letters for payments relating to a contract I never have, nor ever would have entered into. The court's valuable time should not have been taken up with this matter and I have repeatedly drawn these matters to the Claimant's attention, but it has refused to see reason.
• The original PCN (AB2) posted by this Claimant states a Full Charge of £100.00 (£60.00 discounted) however the Claimant's legal firm now inflates these sums, in a deliberate or negligent attempt at quadruple recovery:

• £100.00 Principal debt
• UK Car park management claim for £60 for time and resources
• Interest £26.68
• Solicitors fee’s £75
• Outstanding balance to pay now £261.68

• 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.
• 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.
  
  Signature
  

Le_Kirk

In the context of your defence/WS what is the purpose of claiming promissory estoppel? Who promised you something?

IainR2

Thanks for mentioning this, it was copied from another witness statement which I used as a source. I actually thought it was implied that I had promised to pay them. But after your comment and reading a bit more looks like I need to remove?

Coupon-mad

Promissory estoppel is nothing to do with any promise or conduct by you.

The homeless person may have been paid by the PPC to that. Nasty, if so. I agree with your thoughts here (there is no Z in 'realised'):

It was at this point I realized that the man acting suspiciously on the day who prevented me from exiting the bay was working on behalf of UK Car Park Management.

Don't say this:

I did not have time to enter into a contract with the claimant.

Use words like entrapment.

Don't put the PCN in evidence! Remove all of this:

The original PCN (AB2) posted by this Claimant states a Full Charge of £100.00 (£60.00 discounted) however the Claimant's legal firm now inflates these sums, in a deliberate or negligent attempt at quadruple recovery:
£100.00 Principal debt
UK Car park management claim for £60 for time and resources
Interest £26.68
Solicitors fee’s £75
Outstanding balance to pay now £261.68

Put in as evidence instead:

- some images of the bays in evidence, plus

- the IPC Code of Practice pages about grace periods, and

- the transcript for Jopson v Homeguard which defines what constitutes PARKING as opposed to brief stopping for a 'minor vicissitude', and

- a copy of the Beavis case sign, next to a pic of UKCPM's dreadful small print sign.

Plus you need the Caernarfon and IOW judgments and the FULL WORDING I wrote in post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy.