COUNTY COURT CLAIM - Link Parking Ltd & Gladstones Solicitors

Pops17

I have altered the defence for submission based on the change of circs re Defendant - as previously discussed.

Any advice would be gratefully received. Thanks

In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXX
Between
LINK PARKING LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

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

2. The Defendant has never had any liability to the Claimant. The Defendant denies that he was the driver and asserts that he had never visited the location. The Claimant also forwarded correspondence to a previous address that the Defendant has not been resident at for almost 12 months.

The Claimant alleges that:
“The driver of the vehicle registration, XXXXXX incurred the parking charge on XXXXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXXX.
The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/ or is the keeper of the vehicle”

It is understood that the parking charge issue reason was: 0029 not parked in a designated area.

3. Since the alleged parking event, the Defendant has visited the location and notes the following:

4. There are a relatively small number of poorly marked signs within the area, which are unclear and inconspicuous. These signs have been placed in front of designated parking bays and would appear to refer to these same parking bays, as ‘private land’.

5. The signs would not have been seen by the driver and fail to meet the requirements of the Claimant’s trade association code of practice.

For example, there are no entrance signs or general signs that: “a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the area which display the full terms and conditions.”

6. The Defendant notes that upon visiting the location, it is unclear what ‘land’ is actually ‘private’. There is no road signage relating to this fact, and there is no clarity on what is public and / or private land within this vicinity. It is also understood that both the local authority and the private parking company are issuing tickets within this same area.

7. The Claimants signs are some distance from the road, and displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and in such positions that anyone attempting to read the font would be unable to easily do so. They would not be legible from the road. It is therefore, denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. Even if the signs could have been read by the driver, the Claimant lacks any legal capacity to bring the claim.

3. 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. They merely state that: “vehicles must fully display a valid permit and be parked within the confines of the correct allocated bay”.

In smaller writing below the sign reads: “by parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms”

However, there is no definition of the “site” or what land this entails or comprises of. Again, there is no clear provision of what land/road is ‘private’ and what is ‘public’. The road is also unmarked and unsigned.

9. The Defendant claims that no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

10. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into a contractual agreement with the Claimant whether express, implied, or by conduct.

11. 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.

12. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 plus costs to pursue an alleged £160 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. The Claimant alleges £160 for parking charges, together with interest of £3.33 pursuant to S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% p/a, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.

Additionally, the Claimant has included a sum of £50.00, described as legal costs. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the charge has not be incurred and puts the onus on the Claimant to prove this.

Even if the cost had been incurred, legal charges cannot be reclaimed at court. Additionally, the Protection of Freedoms Act states that the claimant cannot recover any sum greater than the amount outstanding the day before the parking notice was issued.

13. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.




Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts contained within this Defence are true.

Name: XXXXXXX
Signature:
Date: 26 October 2018

The_Deep

my partner received a fine (as the registered keeper) for a significant amount more than the original (extortionate) fine.

They keep doing this, They know full well that even if they won their claim, the most a judge is likely to award them is c@ £200. BTW, it is not a fine.

In my mind this is unprofessional conduct, bordering on fraud. Complain to their regulatory body.

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Also to your MP

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, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant 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.
each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct






myi

Coupon-mad

Did the Defendant (not you) do the AOS by email to the CCBC now, and so is that done and dusted? I hope so. It's late.

If so, then there's time to work on this defence they must sign & date, but would look to do that by Sunday, to get it in!