Gladstone Solicitors/ Civil Enforcement LTD - CCJs at old address

CBoogie

Could I please have some direction on the below? this is really confusing and I hope I've written it correctly, Ive used some of the templates Ive found online and merged them together to kinda fit my case?

In the xxx County Court
Claim Number: xxx
Between
GLADSTONE SOLICTORS (Claimant)
V
xxxx (Defendant)



Defence Statement


Preliminary Matters.

(1). The claimant failed to serve a defence to the defendants correct address, despite sending letters to the defendants correct address, contradictory of pre-Practice Direction para.3A and Practice Direction 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A). Thus having an unfair advantage in bringing litigation to the defendant.

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:-

a. If the claimant operates parking management activities on land which is not owned by them, they must supply the defendant with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish the claimant as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish the claimant 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 the claimant intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

1.1 there is no direct evidence produced by the Claimant that he was the driver and there is no evidence for the court to infer that he was. There is no case law to support the proposition that there is a presumption (rebuttable by the Defendant) that the keeper was the driver (a reverse burden of proof). R (on the application of Duff) v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWHC 1605, CPS v AJH Films [2015] EWCA Civ 1453 and Elliott v Loake do not provide that there is a reasonable presumption that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. This is trite law.
1.2 POPLA’s lead adjudicator Lead Adjudicator Henry Gleenslade, experienced Counsel, states in its 2015 Annual Report that there is no presumption in law that a keeper of a vehicle is its driver, and keepers have no legal obligation whatsoever to disclose the identity of the driver to a private parking company.

(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 Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is named ‘roboclaims’ 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 £1000’,
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. Referring to the pre-court protocol Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, also drawing to attention 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 xxxx, 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 has purposely sent all letters to an incorrect address, which can only be assumed to not allow the defendant to properly defend the case in its entirety. Thus, skipping a fair hearing and jumping straight to having a default judgment issued against the defendant. The two Notice to Keepers (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.

(3) 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:

1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
3. 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.
4. The Particulars of Claim (which was shown to the defendant during the set-aside hearing by District Judge Keating) contains no proper details and fails to establish a cause terms” 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.

5. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of 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 efficient 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.


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

I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd 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.

(5) The defendant wrote to the claimant on 5/03/2019 asking for:
a) Full particulars of the parking charges
b) Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management.
c) The full legal identity of the landowner
d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park Management had their authority.
e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide
justification of this sum.
f) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking
and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
g) 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.

(6) 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 Gladstone’s are a firm of solicitors whose Directors 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.

(7). UK Car Park Management are 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.

1. 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.

2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

3. 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

(8)
1. 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.

2. 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.

(9) Assuming the signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist:

1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read.
2. The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
3. The sign does not contain an obligation as to how to ‘valid 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.
4. 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.

(10) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed 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 accessible.

(11)1. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be instructing bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges of £25 to the £100 with 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 added on later with misleading figures, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

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

(12). 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 theunique 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'.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

xxxxx 10.03.2019

Umkomaas

I don't get involved to any great degree with defences but, Gladstones are definitely not the Claimant - that will be the PPC.

In addition, the overall defence looks somewhat lengthy - have you based it on and around legally qualified expert bargepole's example of a short and to the point draft defence shown in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2?

CBoogie

right ok, ukcpm are the claimants, so what are Gladstones here for then, becasue all the correspondence has been from them, even at the set aside hearing\?

yes I have but also including some of my particulars etc not filing at the correct address knowingly, still not received any reply to the SAR and so on... so still don't know what this cci is for

Ive got seven days left to file this, is there anything such as photos I need to include?

Coupon-mad

so what are Gladstones here for then, becasue all the correspondence has been from them, even at the set aside hearing\?

They are acting as the parking firm's Solicitors, as always, as per every UKCPM thread.

The parking scammer's solicitors are never the Claimant.

is there anything such as photos I need to include?

Well as this is following a successful set aside then you should be doing a defence and evidence - yes, photos, case law or other similar thread transcripts, same as you see explained in the NEWBIES thread where I give some tips about evidence, as you will only get one chance to submit something if UKCPM proceed.

05-03-2019So i’ve just had my set aside hearing w/ DJ Keating and he allowed the set aside, however he says after seeing GS particulars and he wasn’t satisfied I would win.

I had to almost beg to see the particulars as GS sent these in this morning and obviously haven’t seen anything prior as they sent it to a wrong address.

I stated this and how vexatious they have acted as they had my correct address and still sent it to a previous address and he told me in short, it wasn’t his problem. lol

anyway i’ve emsiled gladstone on the email they used to send in their particulars to the court asking for the claim form and particulars and their defence etc and i have 14 days to file a defence.

But i’m worried that if gladstone don’t send me their claim i’ll have a difficult time defending it as I don’t actually know what it’s for/when etc.

still not received any reply to the SAR and so on... so still don't know what this ccj is for

So you are trying to submit a defence without having seen anything at all re the UKCPM PCN? Or has something arrived by now from Gs?

Yet you must know where the location is, and you asked us about whether to include photos. So what do you know about the UKCPM car park, was it a residential place where a permit should have been displayed, and if it wasn't, why not?

Tell us what you do know about it, and show us a more concise defence draft, based on the examples by bargepole in the NEWBIES thread, and adding a point near the start making it clear you are having to defend this blind, having been served no POC, no Claim form, no WS, and no evidence?

When you emailed Gs and UKCPM re that SAR, you did repeat your postal address, and tell them to make sure that one if used for service of all documents, yes?

What do you mean, that you have 14 days to do a defence, when are you counting that 14 days from, the date of the set aside, or the date from when Gs provide you with their client's POC, WS and evidence?

Now you say seven days?

Ive got seven days left to file this,

CBoogie

I say photos because they judge showed me where the parking charge occurred from the defence Gladstone filed the day of the hearing, but only allowed me to take pictures of the particulars, which was about a paragraph long, but wouldn't allow me to take pictures of the evidence they had sent in and said that I needed to email the claimants and gave me the email which was used to send the defence statement. as this occurred local to me I can go there and take pictures of signage. This happened nearly 3 years ago so I don't remember what I was doing there, if I was driving the car etc.

the car was parked in a residential car park and the evidence that was used by the claimant was my old parking council permit that it was out of date by a day, and that's (from my understanding) is the basis for their claim, but as the judge wouldn't let me see the paperwork it makes it difficult to ascertain the actual 'offence'.

please bear with me, Im a bit slow, this is awfully confusing and I have real trouble processing large amounts of information so reading all of these different threads adds a lot of confusion.

GS/ UKCPM are still yet to send any kind of evidence so yes I am defending this blind. I had my hearing on the 5th and the judge said he would award me 14 days from the hearing date (hence the 7 days left).

I've emailed Gladstone + UKCPM almost everyday asking for their defence and evidence reiterating the correct postal address but have yet to see anything.

Coupon-mad

So you use bargepole's concise defence from the NEWBIES thread; there is one there about a residential car park. If more than one person could have been driving then say so, in the second point about the facts of the case, and state this too:

I've emailed Gladstone + UKCPM almost everyday asking for their defence and evidence reiterating the correct postal address but have yet to see anything.

A COUNCIL permit cannot have been used on private land, or was it a Council Housing estate, or a Housing Association estate where you/your family was resident?

CBoogie

I have a council permit for a different area, but Gladstone took a picture of this and claimed it was for the area I was parked in and are trying to use that as their defence. I have now received the particulars fo the claim and they are about 4 lines long and state that 'breach of contract' is their reason but not given any examples as to how Ive breached the contract.

I also went on site today where they stated the contravention happened and took photos of the entrance and the signage. the only sign was behind a tree which was holstered 8-10ft in the air. with really tiny lettering. Ive taken a video and pictures and will include this in the case. I hope this makes more sense.

Coupon-mad

Yes that makes sense.

But do attach a covering letter with your defence and photos, stating that:

- you have received no witness statement or any evidence at all, and have only got this week, the very sparse 4 line Particulars of claim and nothing else,

- and can the Judge please order an extension of time, vacate the hearing, and order the Claimant to serve their evidence to you, giving you a chance to then respond before trial,

and

- at the trial you intend to show a very short video of the site signage which backs up your photo evidence, and trust this will be acceptable, given that you have emailed a link to the video (as well as all your photos/evidence) to the Claimant.

CBoogie

so just before I send the pack it should include,

- cover letter incl. Vids and pics
- defence
- (a) a copy of the Beavis case sign as a comparison to show how awful the small print sign was in yours case
(d) a copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA - there is a link to it in post #1 above. The Judge will NOT have this to hand & is unlikely to be familiar with it. This is only applicable if you are defending as keeper.
(e) a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper.
(g) the case transcripts that support your argument
(h) the IPC or BPA Code of practice, where it supports your case (e.g. the grace periods section 13 of the CoP in a BPA few minutes' 'overstay' claim).

Coupon-mad

Yes if those relate to your case.