Gladstones- UKCPM CCBC

jimbob7s

Hi all,

Excuse the newb account, I am not using my main as I wish not to show personal details.
So anyway just found out I got a CCBC in the door from Gladstones for a Parking Charge Notice from last year.
I read through the newbie forums and have started a thread in the hope of a little help in what I can use as a defense.
Thank you for the Newbie Thread btw, Its quite something!

So I have gone ahead and filed online the Acknowledgement of service.

The Issue date of the CCBC is the 7th Nov.
Total Amount £245.99

Particulars of claim:
The driver of the vehicle registration (the 'Vehicle')
incurred the parking charge(s) on xx/xx/xxxx for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £10.99 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa. continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.


The details:

I was staying in a premier inn down south and after work I parked down the side of the hotel as the car park was full, along with everyone else.
I put my parking badge from the hotel in the window and went to bed, when i got up I had the fine on the window.
I went into reception and said I have a fine from parking outside whats that all about, they said there parking company doesn't do that part of the road.

Anyway Its pretty ridiculous I didn't see any signs saying no parking, It was just a standard road with no markings at all, I parallel parked in between 2 cars so course I thought it was legal to park there. (after looking back on streetview there is a sign but no way you'd see that in the pitch black and even if you did see it you'd think it was the one for premier inn as it is 4 foot from premier inns wall(streetview is dated 6 months before i parked there))

I have received letters from CPM, DRP and also gladstone.
The Pictures in the Formal Demand are garbage, Its pitch black and you cant see any signs.
Anyway I'm not an Idiot if I had thought it was illegal to park where I was I wouldn't have parked there.

I'm not sure what I can use as a defense other than unlit/inadequate signage, Proof of loss of earnings,proof of the person who owns the land hired them, I didn't enter a contract with them.

I have added 2 streetview pics, I was parked inbetween where the mini and black Peugeot is.

Sorry If I have blabbed on too much.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Any help would be amazing thank you!
ttp://tinypic.com/r/33kpr0n/9
ttp://tinypic.com/r/jtmfz5/9
:wave:

KeithP

jimbob7s wrote: »

So I have gone ahead and filed online the Acknowledgement of service.

The Issue date of the CCBC is the 7th Nov.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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 suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

jimbob7s

Hay Keith, Thank you for your quick reply,
I'm gonna keep cracking on trying to make a defense.
If anyone in the mean time has any ideas I'm all ears.
Thank you again!

jimbob7s

Hi all, Here's my defence, what do you think, If its any good hopefully more people can use it.(update: has been looked at in another thread)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date next to the Premier Inn Hotel at which he was staying. The Defendant seen and parked next to a visible Premier Inn Parking Pay and Display sign to which he displayed his parking disc on the dash which was supplied by the hotel.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the registered keeper of the vehicle. These assertions indicate 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.


5. When the Defendant returned to where he parked to see how he possibly got a ticket he seen the Claimants signs on the other side of the road to where he parked. The signs were in no way visible to him at night when he parked up. They are mounted on a low wall with absolutely no lighting on the street or the sign, the writing is unreadable unless you are 1-2 feet away from it. The Claimants own picture of the car parked on the street shows how dark the street is and how the sign is in no way legible.


6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.



7. As far as the Defendant is concerned, he was parked legally with a Premier Inn parking permit no more than 4 feet from the premier Inns walls and only a few feet more from the visible Premier Inn Parking sign. The Defendant finds it quite sneaky and unacceptable for the claimant to put illegible signs on the other side of the road to pray on residents of the hotel.



8. The Defendant has supplied photos of the Claimants illegible, inadequate signage and of the highly visible Premier Inn parking sign to which he parked next to.

9. 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.

10. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.


11. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

12. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

13. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.



14. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim

15. 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