Letter before claim from Gladstones Solicitors

The_Deep

Have you started your own thread? If you seek our help or advice please do so

Have you checked with your local council that they hav planning and advertising consents in place? Complain to your MP.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .




e

CheapWallpaper

I haven't started my own thread yet but I might. What applies to raddoc applies to me though, the cases are virtually identical. I've done my AOS on the Northampton court website so will be stating on my defence soon.

raddoc

Here is my defence - any comments/amendments advised ?


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

ES PARKING ENFORCEMENT 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 legitimately on the material date in a marked bay at Seymour Grove Retail Park, Manchester.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle parked in breach of the terms stipulated on the signage. 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. 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. 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 customers must remain on site for the entire period of parking, giving no indication whatsoever which retail units on the boundaries of the car park constitute part of "the site" and which do not.

5. 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 small 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.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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.

7. 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.

8. 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



Should this go in anywhere:
The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver 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.

Also should I include that I followed the IAS appeals procedure but that the appeal was rejected with no consideration given to any of the points raised ?

Thanks

Le_Kirk

If you have read the concisely written defences by Bargepole, you will see that this indeed is used and goes in at point 3, with all the other points being moved down one.

raddoc

Thanks. I did but took it out as not so confident of arguing this point in court and wasn't sure if bargepole example defence exactly mirrors my case. Easy enough to insert it back in as point 3.

CheapWallpaper

Firstly, thanks to Raddoc, who's saving me effort on this as our situations are very similar.


This actual difference is I received the PCN and Final Demand from ES Parking, and rightly or wrongly, didn't respond at all. I then received the Court Papers a couple of weeks ago. Do Gladstones only send the one ('Letter Before Claim') letter, because I haven't had one? Obviously possible that they've just not posted the letter. I would have thought you'd send more than one if threatening to take someone to court.


Also, it's well known someone (presumably an ES employee) frequently sits in their car in the car park in question and takes pictures of people purposely for the object of fining people. It's quite obvious from the pictures taken of my car in the car park that's whats happened here. Surely this is highly dubious from a legal perspective?


(N.B. I'm the registered keeper and the one being taken to court.)

KeithP

CheapWallpaper, as suggested earlier, if you want answers specific to your situation, you'll need to start your own thread.

Answering the questions from two different people, however similar the incidents may appear to be, can only lead to confusion.

Thank you for your understanding.

CheapWallpaper

KeithP, if you wish to message a specific person, you'll note on the left you can click on their name and there's an option 'Send private message'. Posting messages to a specific person on a thread will only lead to confusion.


Thank you for your understanding.

beamerguy

CheapWallpaper wrote: »

KeithP, if you wish to message a specific person, you'll note on the left you can click on their name and there's an option 'Send private message'. Posting messages to a specific person on a thread will only lead to confusion.


Thank you for your understanding.

With 13,533 posts to his name, KeithP knows how this forum works.

That is why you must start your own thread ..... if you want a response

raddoc

Update on my case:
Defence submitted.
DQ submitted by both parties.
Received notice of transfer of proceedings to our local county court.

Received "General form of Judgement or Order" letter indicating Claimant PoC did not comply with CPR and were struck out and Claimant had to serve a POC supported by statement of truth identifying several things: "terms of relevant contract", "what was the breach", "what is the cause of action and how it arose ?"

Gladstone's duly responded few days later with Particulars of Claim - looks like a standard template to my untrained eye. Copy of the contract is just what's on the signpost. What does this statement mean "The Claimant claims costs on contractual (indemnity) basis, pursuant to CPR 44.5, as the contract contains an expressed indemnity clause permitting them to do so".

General Form of Judgement letter offers me the opportunity to send substitute defence by 19th August - I presume I do not need this.

Not received Notice of Allocation or any timetable for exchanging statements - guess that will be coming soon.

Thanks for any advice offered.