We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Another PCN Vs Gladstones and UK Carpark Management Limited- Court Claim Phase
CrissCross
Posts: 8 Forumite
So here is a summary of the story:
My Wife's car was left unattended by someone at a location which apparently is private land. This is a permit only car park. However the vehicle does not appear to have been parked in a parking bay. This is shown in the pictures which she was sent by UKPM. It also does not appear to be obstructing other bays (car could easily drive around it). We ignored the letters from UKPM and subsequent ones from Gladstones (I need to confirm whether we ever got dept collection threat this time round) as this strategy had worked well for similar situations in the past.
I intend to respond to the court with an AOS in the next few days as per instructions on the newbie thread. Will request an extension too.
About the court claim:
"
The Driver of the vehicle incurred a parking charge(s) on dd/mm/yy for breaching the terms of parking on the land at "ADDRESS".
The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £XXX for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £xx.xx pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act of 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.0x per day.
"
Here is my first defence draft (based on others I have seen here). I expect there to be holes in this, perhaps some irrelevant or outdated information. I would be really grateful if you could have a look and point me in the right direction. :
It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle. As per the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.
I am contesting for the following reasons:
1. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
2. I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application.
Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Car Park Management limited, and no proof has been provided.
3. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Gladstones have also added a ‘legal Representative Cost’ I propose these have not been incurred by the claimant but artificially invented in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
4. The claim also states "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example: whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees', or whether any damage or losses were suffered; in either case evidence would need to be provided. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
6. In the pre-court stage the Claimant’s solicitor failed to provide me, the defendant, with the necessary adequate information which I would have required in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
As a notorious and infamously seasoned user of the small claims system, the Claimant's Solicitors - who file such baseless, unevidenced claims in their hundreds every week - will know that prior to 1 October 2017, the provisions of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct applied to claims of this nature, and it contained various obligations on the Claimant, with which they were obliged to comply before issuing any claim (paragraphs 3, 6(a) and 6(c)).
I put this Claimant to explain why they have failed to comply with either the new or the old Practice Directions and why Gladstones appear to consider themselves and their clients to be immune from the rules of the court, which bind every other litigant. There has not been any communication from the claimant which included any of the following:
a. A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b. A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.
c. A copy of any contractual agreement (which would need to adhere to the Consumer Rights Act 2015) which the claimant might be claiming was breached.
d. How the “charge amount” has been calculated and justified.
e. Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
7. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being similar in nature to unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
8. It is strongly denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
No promise was made by the defendant that could constitute a contractual agreement because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
Due to the vague nature of the claim I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a broad, pre-fabricated, claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way. Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.
Given that the claimant is in significant breach of protocol, I respectfully ask for the claim to be struck out pursuant to CPR Part.4 3 for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. I understand that HM Courts and Tribunal Services have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims which appear to be against the public interest, a waste of court time and unfair on unrepresented consumers.
The court may of course make such an order of its own volition by exercising its inherent case management powers under CPR Part 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1. If the court does not wish to make an order under Part 1.4(2)(c) it has the power to treat this letter as an application and dispense with the requirement for me to file a formal application - this power is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2)(b). In such scenario, I kindly invite the court to take this step without putting me - a Litigant in Person significantly disadvantaged by a firm of Solicitors - to the time, trouble and cost of a formal application.
Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
My Wife's car was left unattended by someone at a location which apparently is private land. This is a permit only car park. However the vehicle does not appear to have been parked in a parking bay. This is shown in the pictures which she was sent by UKPM. It also does not appear to be obstructing other bays (car could easily drive around it). We ignored the letters from UKPM and subsequent ones from Gladstones (I need to confirm whether we ever got dept collection threat this time round) as this strategy had worked well for similar situations in the past.
I intend to respond to the court with an AOS in the next few days as per instructions on the newbie thread. Will request an extension too.
About the court claim:
"
The Driver of the vehicle incurred a parking charge(s) on dd/mm/yy for breaching the terms of parking on the land at "ADDRESS".
The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £XXX for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £xx.xx pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act of 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.0x per day.
"
Here is my first defence draft (based on others I have seen here). I expect there to be holes in this, perhaps some irrelevant or outdated information. I would be really grateful if you could have a look and point me in the right direction. :
It is acknowledged that the defendant, xxx, residing at xxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle. As per the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.
I am contesting for the following reasons:
1. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
2. I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application.
Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Car Park Management limited, and no proof has been provided.
3. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Gladstones have also added a ‘legal Representative Cost’ I propose these have not been incurred by the claimant but artificially invented in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.
4. The claim also states "parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example: whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees', or whether any damage or losses were suffered; in either case evidence would need to be provided. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
6. In the pre-court stage the Claimant’s solicitor failed to provide me, the defendant, with the necessary adequate information which I would have required in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
As a notorious and infamously seasoned user of the small claims system, the Claimant's Solicitors - who file such baseless, unevidenced claims in their hundreds every week - will know that prior to 1 October 2017, the provisions of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct applied to claims of this nature, and it contained various obligations on the Claimant, with which they were obliged to comply before issuing any claim (paragraphs 3, 6(a) and 6(c)).
I put this Claimant to explain why they have failed to comply with either the new or the old Practice Directions and why Gladstones appear to consider themselves and their clients to be immune from the rules of the court, which bind every other litigant. There has not been any communication from the claimant which included any of the following:
a. A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b. A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely.
c. A copy of any contractual agreement (which would need to adhere to the Consumer Rights Act 2015) which the claimant might be claiming was breached.
d. How the “charge amount” has been calculated and justified.
e. Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
7. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being similar in nature to unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
8. It is strongly denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.
No promise was made by the defendant that could constitute a contractual agreement because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.
It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.
Due to the vague nature of the claim I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a broad, pre-fabricated, claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way. Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.
Given that the claimant is in significant breach of protocol, I respectfully ask for the claim to be struck out pursuant to CPR Part.4 3 for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. I understand that HM Courts and Tribunal Services have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims which appear to be against the public interest, a waste of court time and unfair on unrepresented consumers.
The court may of course make such an order of its own volition by exercising its inherent case management powers under CPR Part 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1. If the court does not wish to make an order under Part 1.4(2)(c) it has the power to treat this letter as an application and dispense with the requirement for me to file a formal application - this power is contained in CPR Part 23.3(2)(b). In such scenario, I kindly invite the court to take this step without putting me - a Litigant in Person significantly disadvantaged by a firm of Solicitors - to the time, trouble and cost of a formal application.
Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
0
Comments
-
How much are they claiming?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
You cannot expect an "extension"
The idea of an AOS is to get an extension from the standard 14 days to 28 in total from the date of service
(The court claim form is the only document that the court will have from the claimant at this stage of the process)0 -
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?0
-
£250 in total.0
-
Issue date is 08/11 so looking to do the AOS tonight or tomorrow.0
-
With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, you have until Tuesday 27th November to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.CrissCross wrote: »Issue date is 08/11 so looking to do the AOS tonight or tomorrow.
Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.
That's four weeks. 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.0 -
Thanks for all the quick feedback. Yes I thought I'd get on it earlier rather than later.
I was hoping someone could go over the defence letter and let me know what they think about it. IK know there is a lot of experience on the forum from other threads I've read.0 -
£250 is far more than the Law allows, the solicitors know this, but hope that people will be frightened into paying by threats of CCJs, etc.
Even if they took thus to court and won, the most a judge is likely to award is i.r.o. £175 - 200 including court fees.
In my opinion this is tantamount to fraud and I urge you to complain strongly to their regulatory body, the SRA.
http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.pageYou never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
£250 is far more than the Law allows, the solicitors know this, but hope that people will be frightened into paying by threats of CCJs, etc.
Even if they took thus to court and won, the most a judge is likely to award is i.r.o. £175 - 200 including court fees.
In my opinion this is tantamount to fraud and I urge you to complain strongly to their regulatory body, the SRA.
.
.
.
.
Thanks.
Do you know what law it is which prevents this?0 -
Do you know what law it is which prevents this?
There is no law to prevent this, anyone can take another to county court ........ it's a dispute0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards