Gladstone Solicitors Parking Claim

Why_always_me

Hi all,

Looking for some help.

I have received a claim form from Gladstone Solicitors on benhalf of UK CPM Ltd.

The car was parked in a private residential area.

Ticket was given and no response made.

Letter before claim letter received and response was provided. Response referred to Practice Directions and Protocol. Also requested the usual information in relation to infringement. All this was obtained from here before sending that response.

I have now received a claim form. Have acknowledged receipt of claim and now need to file a defence.

Any help will be much appreciated.

Thanking you in advance .

Umkomaas

The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 covers what you need to know and do in response to a claim, developing a defence .... and so on, right up to your court appearance.

UKCPM are currently the country's most litigious parking company, so prepare for a court hearing in about 5 months time. The more research you do to expand your knowledge and understanding of what you need to do will give you your best chance of success.

nosferatu1001

Have you read post 2 of the newbies thread, and the suggested defences there?
THat is the obvious start.

Entirely impossible to advise further as we have absolutely no useful information.
- did the driver park in their own space/ Someone elses?
- what is the alleged cause of action? No permit? wrong space?

etc
Once youve read, say, half a dozen residential threads, you will know how to defend and can fill in the blanks.

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on the Claim Form?

Why_always_me

2 October 2018

Why_always_me

Below is my draft defence. Please let me know if there is anything I should add/remove. Many thanks.

————————————
Preliminary Matters

(1) The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction
16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the
Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade
Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

(2) 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. Indeed the Particulars of Claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts and Tribunal Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is robo-claims and as such is against the public interest.

Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money
owed £5000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

(3) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

1. I would refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I would also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.

Statement of Defence

I am xxxxxxxx, the Defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
incident.

The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1) The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
ascertained.

a. The Claimant did not identify the driver;
b. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
c. The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.

(2) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.

a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt;
b. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred;
c. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e. On the 20th of September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones Solicitors was struck out by District Judge (DJ) Cross at St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
f. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were inefficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

(3) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
a. I would refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I would also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.

(4) The defendant wrote to the Claimant’s solicitors on xxxxxx asking for:

• full particulars of the parking charges;
• who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management;
• the full legal identity of the landowner;
• a full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park Management had their authority;
• if the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum;
• to provide a copy of the signs that UK Car Park Management can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.

The Claimant has not responded.

(5) Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and
dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the
outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the
pre action protocol.

As Gladstones Solicitors are a firm of solicitors with Directors that also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and
asks leave to amend the Defence.

(6) UK Car Park Management is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
c. The Claimant is put to 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.

(7) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100
to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an
attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
a. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(8) No evidence was provided in relation to signage. And given the nature of signage since this incident, the Defendant would raise that any signage would have been inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.

a. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
b. The signage does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘validly display’ the ticket in the windscreen, therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
c. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(9) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration transferred between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and been accessible.

(10) The Claimant has sent misleading demands which state that further debt is owed in addition to original demand. There has been no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated.

No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the
alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs.
Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.

a. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
b. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
c. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
d. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

(11) The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished
from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free
parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex
contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the
unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any
photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms
hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract
Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.

KeithP

Is that your real name in that post?
That's definitely not a good idea.

Why_always_me wrote: »

2 October 2018

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd October, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th November 2018 to file your Defence.

Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, 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.

Redx

its DEFENCE, no

STATEMENT OF

needs a statement of truth at the end

remove personal info like NAME etc

I suggest it needs slimming down, read some of the recent BARGEPOLE defences for inspiration, especially his CONCIDE ones

use a LAPTOP for this, especially editing, not a dumbfone

Why_always_me

Can anyone help me with this?

Redx

Why_always_me wrote: »

Can anyone help me with this?

only somebody with legal training who may come here now and again as a volunteer


this is not a legal forum , so most people here have no legal backgrounds (what do you expect for free ? lol)

Why_always_me

Sorry, I was asking if someone could assist me with editing or deleting one of the above posts. I don’t seem to be able to find any option to do so.