Gladstone county court UK CPM

rikster31

Hi guys,

Thank you for your help in advance. I'm currently in a dilemma as I have received a County Court claim form last week by Gladstone Brooks who are we presenting UK CPM.

I had received A letter from UK CPM around last year and I Took the advice on the NEWBIES section members and replied with the letter below. ( it's at the bottom of my post) - just to note, I didn't receive a reply from them.

I subsequently received a couple of letters from Gladstone Brooks asking for payments to be made. I ignored all the letters and I've unfortunately also thrown them away.

My back story is I had parked in a pick up and drop off bay of a residential building where I went to get some treatment done in a local shop attached to the residential building. I received a letter around 3 to 4 weeks after stating that I had parked without a permit and I was liable for paying the a fine. There is a small sign near the pick up and drop of bay stating that cars can be parked for 15 minutes.

I have just signed into the MCOL website and acknowledged the claim and have stated that I will be defending the claim. I'm currently preparing my defence and I was wondering if people could give me pointers. I've had a look through a lot of the forums and I'm having difficulty getting the appropriate points as i'm not sure if the same rules apply for parking bays as well as pick up and drop off bays( I've coallated a load of them and will post below). There is only one sign stating that you need to have a parking permit and that is on the other side of the car park which isn't very visible.

Do I have legs to stand on in this case?

Any help will be very much appreciated. Thank you

The first correspondence to them

Re PCN number:

I am the keeper of the vehicle and am aware of your purported 'parking charge'. The driver will not be identified. I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs, which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery'. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data.

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the IPC Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, as seems likely based on my research) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me. I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle.

I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

rikster31

These are a couple of the things I've coallated from other forums

Defence Statement


Preliminary Matters.

(1). The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction
16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the
Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade
Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover
parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not
necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

(2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars
of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.


On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
incident.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question is unknown and has not been
ascertained.
1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant
must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to
hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
3. The code of practice for BPA registered parking companies clearly states ‘The driver is responsible for paying the parking ticket.‘

(2) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars. 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.

(3) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular:
1. The Claimant has not disclosed a time of the alleged incident.
2. The Claimant has not disclosed the alleged car park of the incident as the location has many.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of how the greatly increased outstanding amount and costs came to be from the original alleged offence.

(4) The Claimant does not own the land therefore, there is reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and have no locus standing to bring this case.
1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question.
3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

(5) The claimants Letter Before Action did not comply with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely, unless I am to assume they will be relying on no documents.

(6) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and a blatant attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(7) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is illegible from the drivers eat due to size and often foliage blocking the sign itself in some locations after further inspection. This is as well as the sporadic and random location of said signage.
2. The BPA code of practice states: ‘There will be a sign at the entrance to the car park that
will explain in the broadest terms that the car park is private land and that it is managed by an AOS operator’. This signage does not exist in any of the car parks at the location.
3. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(8) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

(9) The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that
further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the
debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were
incorporated into the small print when they were not.

KeithP

Gladstone Brooks??

You've been watching too much daytime television.


What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Coupon-mad

That looks like a very old and rambling template you found. The headings are not right, the preliminary stuff is just waffle and we don't use that any more.

You need to read the simpler ones by bargepole in the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread.

Where do people get the idea of Gladstone Brooks from (yes, I know, the stupid daytime TV ad). But clearly this is not them. We know it's Gladstones and this firm is mentioned dozens of times every single day on threads here.

rikster31

Sorry- the Gladstone’s Brooks hym is stuck in my head.

The issue date is the 8th of November and I’ve requested 28days via the MCOL portal, which I guess will take me to the 6th of December?

Coupon mad- sorry to be a pain but do you have a link to the 2nd post of the newbies thread?

KeithP

rikster31 wrote: »

The issue date is the 8th of November and I’ve requested 28days via the MCOL portal, which I guess will take me to the 6th of December?

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's 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 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 FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

rikster31 wrote: »

Coupon mad- sorry to be a pain but do you have a link to the 2nd post of the newbies thread?

Nope, sorry.

Why do people ask this when it's in my signature where to click. The link is at the top of every page to get back to page one...

rikster31

Thanks Keith!!

In terms of the defence, can I use the summary posted above? Or is it not worth it and if so, could you point me in the right direction. Would you guys be happy to review the defence once I’ve drafted it?

Thanks for your help

rikster31

Thanks coupon Mad- I’m not familiar with this forum so apologies. I’ve also been through the newbies forum and it’s quite confusing. If you are refering to a specific post then if you could direct me that would be great otherwise I will try and dig it out.

I’m sure it’s frustrating having to keep guiding newbies on this forum as I can see you try and help out everyone, so apologies.

Coupon-mad

We are talking about the second post. The one about court (only one post there is about court stage). The one with #2 top right.

Like this reply is #10, here.

rikster31

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We are talking about the second post. The one about court (only one post there is about court stage). The one with #2 top right.

Like this reply is #10, here.

Thanks Coupon-mad. Ive been doing some reading and have created a statement of defence. Would you guys be able to give me some feedback on it please.

Just to add, the parking spot i was parked on was a drop off and pick up bay and had a maximum stay of 15 minutes ( there is a small sign on the wall of the bay) - should this alter my defence in any way?

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
incident.
It was not cost effective to employ a solicitor in this case so I have had to arrange this defence myself. This is the first time I have been through this process so please excuse me if I fail to use the correct legal terms.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1) The claimants Letter Before Action did not comply with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely, unless I am to assume they will be relying on no documents.
The Defendant believes this is necessary to avoid the courts becoming clogged with trivial disputes based on the Claimant's negligence and misrepresentation, which bring the law into disrepute and harms the interests of parties who would be responsible for the costs of such actions.

(2) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars. 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.

(3) (1). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question is unknown and has not been ascertained.
1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
3. The code of practice for BPA registered parking companies clearly states ‘The driver is responsible for paying the parking ticket.

(4) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence and the defendant requests the claimant to file a coherent statement of facts in line with the civil procedure rules. In particular:
1. The Claimant has not disclosed a time of the alleged incident.
2. The Claimant has not disclosed the particular parking bay of the incident as the location has two types – car parking space which may be governed under the signage rules, and a drop off and pick up parking space which is not mentioned in the signage.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of how the greatly increased outstanding amount and costs came to be from the original alleged offence.

(5) As an alternative, the defendant requests the court uses its power to strike out a claim as it is vexatious and ill-founded. Please see CPR 3.4(2)(b) and CPR PD 3A, para 1.5.

(6) The Claimant does not own the land therefore, there is reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and have no locus standing to bring this case.
1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

(8) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is not adequately placed for the driver to view easily and there is only one sign on the premises. Additionally the sign does not provide any information on the alleged parking space which was a specific drop off and pick up bay.
2. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.