Court Claim from PCM/Gladstone

BandB58

Hi,

I've been doing plenty of reading on this forum and the PADI site today as I've just received a court claim form. I've registered an AOS and now starting on the defence, but I have a couple of things which I'd be grateful for advice on before I do. I've listed the timings and other useful info such as the particulars of claim below so hopefully these are enough for people to offer some advice.

EDITED: Just to say I have created a thread as per the guidance in the Newbies thread given I've now received a court claim and I will update this with a draft defence once I've done it, but I am about to go away until 20 October so won't get to it properly until then.

Thanks in advance

1. Do the particulars of claim (exact wording below) give me grounds to seek further details from the claimant? And if so, what is the best way to do this, e.g., is a Part 18 request appropriate?
2. As I understand it, the fact the Claimant hasn't issued a LBC isn't grounds for the claim to be dismissed but is something I should mention in the defence, is this correct?

Claimant: Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd
Solicitors: Gladstone
County Court Claim Issued: 03-10-18
AOS submitted: 09-10-18

Particulars of claim:
The driver of the vehicle registration XXX (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on XXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXX.
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£XXX for Parking Charges/Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £XXX pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £XXX per day.

BandB58

Hi,

Is anyone able to help me with my 2 questions before I start writing my defence? Pulled out here to make them quick to see:

1. Do the particulars of claim (exact wording below) give me grounds to seek further details from the claimant? And if so, what is the best way to do this, e.g., is a Part 18 request appropriate?
2. As I understand it, the fact the Claimant hasn't issued a LBC isn't grounds for the claim to be dismissed but is something I should mention in the defence, is this correct?

KeithP

BandB58 wrote: »

County Court Claim: 03-10-18
AOS submitted: 09-10-18

I'll assume that that is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form.

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd October, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th November 2018 to file your Defence.

Less than two weeks to go, but 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 your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

1. Do the particulars of claim (exact wording below) give me grounds to seek further details from the claimant? And if so, what is the best way to do this, e.g., is a Part 18 request appropriate?

No, do the defence. Then send the parking firm (NOT SOLICITOR) a SAR. No asking what that is, please...

2. As I understand it, the fact the Claimant hasn't issued a LBC isn't grounds for the claim to be dismissed but is something I should mention in the defence, is this correct?

Yes like in any defence you see, things like that are mentioned. Not a game changer.

BandB58

Thank you Keith and Coupon-mad for the really helpful replies. I will post my draft defence up for people to critique, aiming to do this tomorrow evening.

The_Deep

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 in the house as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week, hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread 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.

logs500

I'd like to know if anyone has ever had a PCM county court case thrown out or has anyone won a case?
I've offered two final settlements for a parking charge, one of £100 which was rejected, then a 2nd of £150, also rejected.
After this, I said I'll go to county court.
They want £251 in full but they said they'd take £190.
What's my chances?

KeithP

logs500 wrote: »

What's my chances?

Logs, you chances of getting any help on this thread are close to nil.

Please read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread then if you still have questions please start your own thread.

Trying to deal with two different incidents for two different people in one thread can only lead to confusion.

Thank you for your understanding.

BandB58

Keith beat me to it Logs, but I would say the chances are good based on the reading I've done on this forum before posting up about my own case.

The newbies / faq thread is the best place to start and then it's worth reading any individual threads (such as this one) that show similarities to your own circumstances, but only to learn... Do not start posting questions about your own case in someone else's thread as it gets confusing. Good luck.

Coupon-mad

logs500 wrote: »

I'd like to know if anyone has ever had a PCM county court case thrown out or has anyone won a case?
I've offered two final settlements for a parking charge, one of £100 which was rejected, then a 2nd of £150, also rejected.
After this, I said I'll go to county court.
They want £251 in full but they said they'd take £190.
What's my chances?

Hahahaha! We have a 99% win rate and I don't think ANYONE here has lost v PCM at a hearing!

Read the NEWBIES thread.

BandB58

I've drafted my defence, all comments welcome to help me get to a finalised version:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. 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 the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. The Defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

3(i) the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

3(ii) There is no presumption in law that the Keeper was the driver and nor is a Keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

4. 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, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5(i). The single sign displayed upon entering the location from the adjoining road (XXX) is obscured by a lamppost and as such is in a position where someone in a passing vehicle is unlikely to see it.

5(ii). There is no signage on the side of the road that the vehicle was parked and therefore there is no indication that there are any terms & conditions associated with parking there.

5(iii). There are no markings on the road itself where the vehicle was parked and therefore there is no indication that there are any terms & conditions associated with parking there.

5(iv). The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Furthermore, the charge is buried in the small print and is an unfair term.

5(v). This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon points 5(i), 5(ii), 5(iii) and 5(iv) above, none of this applies in this material case.

Are either of these points relevant if I am using point 8 from other suggested defences?
6. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £XXX is an unenforceable penalty clause.

7. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £XXX is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

10. The Claimant’s Notice To Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 8 including but not limited to 2(f).

11. Furthermore, the Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) as there was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, which should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre Action Conduct.

12. 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