Gladstones letter before claim - On the verge of giving in

Redx

I would be adapting the concise DEFENCE by BARGEPOLE, adding in whatever else is required as a defence

remember, your WS talks about what did or did not happen on the day and what you know

a defence is the legal arguments as to why you as DEFENDANT are not liable, plus addresses the POC as well, plus dispute the charges etc too

Motocross446

Thanks, I did read some of the defences on the newbies thread and I based it on the 'parking in own spot' defence. I will adapt and re-post!

Pjr1525

Hi moto. I'm one of the 99% who have won against Gladstones ( mid Feb' ) they sent a 41 page witness statement to myself and the court, ( hope they didn't charge the ppc too much ) apparently the case was as watertight as a mermaids belly button. You know what, they didn't even turn up at court. They bluff, hoping that you blink first. That's not to say you shouldn't make out a good defence though.

This post is just to give you a bit of encouragement, follow the forum's advice as I did, and I'm sure you will beat these people. Regards.

Motocross446

Hi all

Please see my updated defence below(it has messed with the formatting slightly), I have based it on the defence written by Coupon-mad/bargepole but removed all references to leases. Interestingly I got a letter from BW threatening me with a CCJ last week.

Thanks Pjr1512, its reassuring to hear there's potential positives to come from this process!


IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXX
Between
Parking and Property Management LTD
(Claimant)

-and-

Myself
(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 on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on [Date]. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates 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.
3. The contravention location listed in the claim 2[completely wrong address]’ is not an address the defendant has ever visited and the defendant can provided a signed witness statement claiming that the defendant was in Swindon all day on the date of (issue date). The claimant was notified at first contact about the issue with the address, to which the claimant responded with a standard copy/paste email. Very shortly after followed by a claim issued by the claimant before the opportunity to discuss the matter was given.
4. The underground car parking area of the location where the defendant was actually parked (Not the address in the claim particulars) contains allocated parking spaces demised individual residents. Entry to the underground parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.
5. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.
6. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

7. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £[excessive amount], the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.
8. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.
9. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements and rights of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this defence are true.

The only section I don't really like the wording of is 3, any suggestions on how I should write it?
The deadline for filing my defence is 4PM tomorrow so would like to send this today.

Thanks again everyone.

Coupon-mad

Interestingly I got a letter from BW threatening me with a CCJ last week.

Everyone gets that now - please report BW Legal to the SRA, for threatening CCJs at people who have acknowledged their claims, saying in the letter that you have somehow 'failed' to defend, which you have not.

This letter has been mentioned before, PLEASE lodge a complaint, it is not on.

Why have you removed mention of leases, if you have retained this bit?

This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

and

9. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements and rights of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

If it is your property then you can rely on a tenancy or leasehold agreement, surely?

Your defence is missing the usual point about no landowner authority, I think.

Motocross446

Thanks, I will definitely lodge a complaint.

I have removed the references to the lease because it is my girlfriends rented accommodation and the lease doesn't contain any useful points, it specifically states a permit must be displayed and you advised I don't reference it.

I left in those sections because I liked the point they were making and didn't specifically mention the lease, should I remove?

Coupon-mad

Ah, it was that one - yes - don't reference a lease if it's unhelpful!

Motocross446

Just to update anyone that's interestedl:

Directions questionnaire received for my first BW ticket, emailed my completed response well within the deadline but it hasn't shown up on MCOL, tried to ring but got cut off a 5PM so have emailed again. It's now past the deadline for submission, should I be more worried about this? I have sent a copy to BW as well.

Second BW ticket is now at LOC stage, this is the one where my friend owns the space so I will be researching appropriate responses to that. (They definitely pulled their finger out with this one to ensure the letter arrived the same day as my DQ)

My first and original ticket is still going back and forth with Gladstones who take at least 2 months to reply to all of my responses despite demanding I reply within 30 days....I think they are starting to fall apart!

Le_Kirk

It is known that Northampton CCBC are behind with processing things, just keep checking MCOL.

Motocross446

Hi all

Very quick question as I am preparing my defence for my 2nd claim. (Have a court date early Sep for the first one)

This one I was parked in my friends space that she owns, she was out and I didn't have access to her permit for a couple of hours so I put a notice in my windscreen explaining this and asking them not to give me a ticket, low and behold a couple of hours late I came down with the permit to find a ticket on my car.

Obviously I should have known better with these people and I have learnt my lesson to not expect them to have a shred of common sense and decency!

Anyway, does this change my defence in any way? Does this work against me or in my favour and should I make a big deal about it in my defence or keep it minimal?

Thanks!