Euro Parking Limited - Gladstone Solicitors County Court Business

CCPECP

thank you i will email them now with my Court References asking if they can be combined.
I also want to start writing up a defence so i will keep you updated throughout this thread and eventually i will hopefully have something solid to go by.
Thank you for your assistance up to this point.
It really means a lot i was clueless before this so i thank all of you

Coupon-mad

You can try an email. Unlikely to work this early to get them merged, but you can try.

We see this quite often, so why not read some other threads about merged claims? Search the forum for those words...

Most people just mention it in their defence, and then at every stage after that in a covering letter, e.g. with the DQ N180, then with the Witness Statement and evidence and then again if your local court have not merged the claims, before the first hearing.

CCPECP

is there a good template i can use to start my defence in a thread? i’m after something that doesn’t focus on my defending myself about the parking itself because it was kind of my fault for parking there three times and not paying
I’m after something to defend myself in terms of criticising the way i was fined and the documents i’ve recieved and the ridiculous charge itself
is there anything similar to what i’m after?
thank you

waamo

CCPECP wrote: »

is there a good template i can use to start my defence in a thread? i’m after something that doesn’t focus on my defending myself about the parking itself because it was kind of my fault for parking there three times and not paying
I’m after something to defend myself in terms of criticising the way i was fined and the documents i’ve recieved and the ridiculous charge itself
is there anything similar to what i’m after?
thank you

Template defences can be a double edged sword. If you don't understand points or they dont apply to you then it makes you look foolish in court.

I would hesitate to rely on a template. There are masses of court cases here. Defences tend to be similar so by all means use recent examples as a framework but please research and understand what you are using. As pointed out there is no rush.

Umkomaas

County Court Judgement Euro Car Park!

The title of this thread is all wrong. This is not a County Court Judgment, nor is it Euro Car Park.

@OP - get it changed please so no one is misled by the title and you get erroneous advice - not everyone reads back over the whole thread before giving an opinion.

EDIT > ADVANCED EDIT > then go from there .......

CCPECP

so i’ve checked the NEWBIE thread roughly and i’ve taken a few points from each defence that i can use for myself.

How does this look?


In The County Court
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
Euro Parking Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

The Claim Form issued on the **** by Euro Parking Services Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “The Legal Team”.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

1/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a)There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.
(b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention nor photographs.
(c) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

2/ I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

5/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Euro Parking Services Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

6/ The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

7/ The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

8. 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.

9/ 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

10/ The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

11/ 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

KeithP

Why does you Defence mention Civil Enforcement?

Why does your Defence mention the BPA CoP - several times?

CCPECP wrote: »

Sorry my bad i mean Euro Parking Services limited

Then please edit your thread title as suggested earlier by Umkomaas.

waamo

They aren't members of the BPA so the BPA code of practice is wholly irrelevant.

Like I said take your time and make sure you understand things.

Coupon-mad

Please change your thread title, it CANNOT stay saying it's a CCJ from Euro Car Parks, neither of which is true.

CCPECP

Hi, I have edited the draft, please check changes accordingly.
I have also changed the name of the thread.