Gladstone county court UK CPM

Coupon-mad

#7 appears to be missing?

How long was the car in that drop off bay and was the driver dropping off/picking up? You need to state those facts in the defence- i.e. spell it out that the car was not parked in the car park, but was properly using an 'access' bay for its intended purpose to allow (what? ...a resident or employee of adjacent premises to board or alight, and/or for items to be loaded/unloaded from the business or flats?).

Also you need to have these facts much higher up:

(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.

At the top it's DEFENCE, not

Statement of Defence

And this should be numbered as point #1 and remove the bits struck out:

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

I would remove this one which isn't needed and isn't right either, because Gladstones do send a LBC that's reasonably compliant these days:

[STRIKE](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.[/STRIKE]

Instead, that's where I would put your facts about the bay and your point #8 which needs to be higher up.

And - you need a statement of truth at the end. Copy bargepole's version which is better at the end (linked in the NEWBIES thread).

rikster31

Thanks Coupon-mad - you are an absolute star!!!!!

rikster31

Ive made the amendments - how does this read?

1. 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.

2. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

3. The moterbike in question was not parked in the car park bay, but was appropriately using an “access bay” ( drop of and pick up bay) for its intended purposes to pick up some goods from the premises. There is a 15 minute stay policy and the defendant was in this parking bay for that given period of time.


4. The signage was inadequate and inappropriate to form a contract with the motorist.
A. 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 access bay ( drop off and pick up).
B. 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.

5. 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.

6. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question is unknown and has not been ascertained.
A. The Claimant did not identify the driver
B. 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.

7. 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:
A. The Claimant has not disclosed a time of the alleged incident.
B. 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 “access parking space” (drop off and pick up) which is not mentioned in the signage.
C. The Claimant has given no indication of how the greatly increased outstanding amount and costs came to be from the original alleged offence.

8. 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.

9. 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.
A. 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.
B. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
C. 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.

Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

Coupon-mad

1. 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.

You didn't remove the words I crossed out above. Now in bold.

There is no such thing as an 'authorised registered keeper'.

moterbike

Typo above!

and the defendant was in this parking bay for that given period of time.

who was?? You are wanting to blab about the driver/rider, then?



Just adding as a note ready for you at WS and evidence stage .

You can use BULSTRODE V LAMBERT which established that a right to access private land includes an implied right to stop to load/unload.

https://swarb.co.uk/bulstrode-v-lambert-chd-1953/

This echoes the view of Lord Neuberger in Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others: HL 17 Oct 2007 :

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071017/jamie.pdf

where at para 123 Lord Neuberger held that to 'park vehicles' was 'to station them on a longer term basis' as opposed to 'the coming and going of motor vehicles along the way...[including]...the right...to station such vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading (people and goods)...'

Thus, the driver/rider was not 'parking under contractual terms, subject to displaying any parking permit/and associated t&cs' but they were instead 'stopped to exercise the implied or specified right or easement (flowing from the landowner who provided the access bay for this purpose) to pass and repass (including stopping) to access the adjacent premises for up to 15 minutes, to load/unload' (temporary access = non parking activity).

rikster31

thanks for the amends coupon-mad!

I will incorporate them tonight and get it sent of tomorrow or day after.

is there anything else i should be adding?
Thanks

Coupon-mad

No, but I spotted two more things:

and a “access parking space”

should be

and an “access parking space”

and this under #9 is just waffle/repetition; you only need the first sentence you had as #9 then remove these:

A. 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.
B. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
C. 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.

rikster31

Thanks - will remove that piece of text and do a once over for grammer
have a good weekend

rikster31

Hi Guys,

Hope you are all well. I wanted some advice. Im in the process of writing up my witness statement, as my case has been sent to a local court, and I have seen different variants on the forum. Am I correct in saying that all I need to do is sum up the chronological events of what has occurred?
Do I admit that I was the driver of the vehicle as this was not ascertained in the PCN.
Also, from the pictures they had provided initially, they haven't taken a picture of my license plate. Is it worth mentioning that ?