County Court Claim - Gladstones

Umkomaas

beanparking wrote: »

Hi, quick question:

For me, taking the day off to go to court is not really an option at the moment. If this is the case, I assume I should agree with Gladstones request to proceed without an oral hearing?

Many thanks!

That's a possibility, but we've not seen any case won this way. You lose a golden opportunity to provide the Judge with the chance to speak with you direct about anything unclear, or needs further explanation. In my view, it puts you on the back foot, possibly passing any advantage over to the claimant.

You can claim for loss of half a day's pay/annual leave (capped at £95) if you win.

beanparking

OK, I didn't realise it would make that much of a difference.

There is a part of me that feels the stress of time-off from work, preparing and going to court isn't worth the cost, but then letting these cowboys win doesn't seem right either!

beanparking

Hello all,
I was hoping you would be able to help me with my witness statement. I have a court date set in early June, and would be most grateful if anyone here could help.

The exhibits listed below are either photos UK CPM had sent or screenshots from Google street view.

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 XXX XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in an unmarked bay at XXX
3. The Defendant never received any Notice to Keeper from the Claimant. The first communication the Defendant received was a letter dated XX/XX/2018 (through DRP debt management (Exhibit A - Notice). The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice to keeper 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 the Defendant liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA.


4. The Defendant denies that any contract was formed between the driver and the Claimant because of Inadequate signage which was incapable of forming any contract would have bound the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

a. Lack of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum. This can be seen in images from Google maps taken shortly after (March-May 2018) the date of the alleged claim (Exhibit E-G). Furthermore, signage has been added in the last 12 months (between May and October 2018 (Exhibit J)) indicating the claimant was aware of the lack of signage and has sought to rectify this.

b. The car park was too dark to see any signage or possibly know about any purported contract term. This can be seen in the photos provided by the claimant (Exhibit B-D).
c. The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible and placed at ground level, where they are hard to read and easily obscured (Exhibit .
d. The parking bays were unmarked, with no distinction between those free to use for Tescos Express customers and those for private tenants (Exhibit B-D/Exhibit K).

This has since changed, with markings indicating which bays are for customers (Exhibit L), indicating the client was aware that the lack of markings was confusing and inadequate.
e. 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 (Exhibit M).
f. Any contract which may have been formed is void because its terms are unfair as they were contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time),
g. No terms were agreed by the driver
h. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
i. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

5. 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.!

6. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s);. 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.!


Thank you for taking the time.

beanparking

Cont.

7. 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.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

9. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

10. I believe that the facts contained in this Defence are true.!

Thank you for taking the time.

The_Deep

Are you aware that new laws are being passed to stop these scammers?

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams and will fail in court so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Le_Kirk

That looks more like a defence than a witness statement. What is it you would actually like?

Coupon-mad

I was hoping you would be able to help me with my witness statement. I have a court date set in early June

The WS should be the story of what happened from your point of view, in the first person. If defending as keeper (not driver) then you can still tell the story, such as that you have visited the site to look at the signs and they are hidden in a corner by the bins (or whatever) and are far from prominent by the bays, where no terms are visible...

etc.

KeithP

Beanparking, why have you started a new thread?

Can you please PM a Board Guide and ask for your threads to be merged. Thanks.

beanparking

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The WS should be the story of what happened from your point of view, in the first person. If defending as keeper (not driver) then you can still tell the story, such as that you have visited the site to look at the signs and they are hidden in a corner by the bins (or whatever) and are far from prominent by the bays, where no terms are visible...

etc.

OK, thanks. I'm looking in another thread that has a 'skeleton argument'. Is this something attached at the same time? Do I need to provide evidence here?

KeithP wrote: »

Can you please PM a Board Guide and ask for your threads to be merged. Thanks.

I have PM'd someone who I understand to be a guide.

Please forgive my general ignorance, I have very little free time and am a little overwhelmed by it all.

The_Deep

Overwhelming it is not, court guidance is clear, the internet is full of advice, (mostly good), and most judges are fully aware of the scam.

The only problem is that it is time consuming and, even if you give the scammer a resounding kicking, you are unlikely to be properly recompensed for your time and effort. For some reason, judges are unwilling to award punitive damages against these companies.