Gladstones Letter Before Claim Oct 2018 - How should I respond?

Le_Kirk

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant "as the driver/keeper of the vehicle(s)".

Should that be: -

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant "was the driver/keeper of the vehicle(s)".

StubbornGoat

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Should that be: -

This is the full text of the Particulars of Claim:

The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXX (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at ADDRESS, on XX/XX/2016, thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN'). The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the Defendant as driver/keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £34.40 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.

StubbornGoat

So does the above defence look ok?

Coupon-mad

Yes but do change the sentence mentioned (move the speech marks & have the word 'was', otherwise it's not a proper sentence):

The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was ''the driver/keeper of the vehicle(s)".

You could also add here:

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper [STRIKE](the car has since been sold)[/STRIKE], was parked on the material date in a Visitor Parking (VP) marked bay which was different [STRIKE]to[/STRIKE] from the allocated parking bays. The driver was authorised to park there and was a genuine visitor of a resident and there was nothing on the signage that the driver understood to relate to visitors (who would of course, not arrive with a permit) or VP bays specifically.

StubbornGoat

Thanks for your reply (and your grammatical excellence lol)

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The driver was authorised to park there and was a genuine visitor of a resident and there was nothing on the signage that the driver understood to relate to visitors (who would of course, not arrive with a permit) or VP bays specifically.

Would they require evidence for this? because the truth of the matter is we were not visiting a resident.

SG

Umkomaas

StubbornGoat wrote: »

Thanks for your reply (and your grammatical excellence lol)



Would they require evidence for this? because the truth of the matter is we were not visiting a resident.

SG

Never chance a lie under a Statement of Truth.

Fiona Onasanya

StubbornGoat

Though I could still truthfully add:

"There was nothing on the signage that the driver understood to relate to visitors (who would of course, not arrive with a permit) or VP bays specifically."

Umkomaas

StubbornGoat wrote: »

Though I could still truthfully add:

"There was nothing on the signage that the driver understood to relate to visitors (who would of course, not arrive with a permit) or VP bays specifically."

That's better.

StubbornGoat

So I now have:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle, registration XXXX and the Claimant knows this as the Defendant informed the Claimant of this on 13th January 2017.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a Visitor Parking (VP) marked bay which was different from the allocated parking bays. There was nothing on the signage that the driver understood to relate to visitors (who would of course, not arrive with a permit) or VP bays specifically.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the driver/keeper of the vehicle(s). 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. Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim state "The driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so" - this is completely false.

5. 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.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. There was also no sign at the entrance to the car park and all other signs were half way up a lamp post (which have since been lowered, indicating acknowledgement by the Claimant that these signs were inadequate)

7. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

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.

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. 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

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, you have what you need.

Never seek out a private car park though, as you have learnt from your two cases!

You CAN stop on street, it's fine, double yellows and all, that's what they are there for, if loading/unloading or picking up a passenger, etc. and you don't get scammed.

I avoid car parks like the plague, unless I am genuinely visiting the shop involved. Never never would I choose to leave the street to pull into some random car park, even if the car was breaking down. These are not places to stop.