Euro Parking Services - County Claim Letter

helpjimmy

Hello guys, ive recieved a county claim letter on behalf of euro parking services issued on the 09/11/18 for an alleged claim on the 23/11/2017. This is my first correspondence regarding this. the basis of the incident is the driver at the time,(who is not the keeper) parked on a local shop car park (Latif Stoke) as a patron and then left the store to visit a shop across the road, when the driver returned they had locked the car park and the driver could not retrieve the vehicle. The driver returned the next day and collected the vehicle with no PCN attached. As the keeper, i received no NTK or LBC, to which i could have responded to earlier. i have acknowledged the claim on MCOL which i intend to fully contest and i have followed the newbies guide as per the forum.

The store has since closed down and i have sold the vehicle also. Can somebody help me with a defence as im unsure how to proceed as reading through other posts, mine is quite a unique one.

This is a Gladstone solicitor client. and they are claiming £243 including all costs.

Do i have anything to contest or should i just pay?

Any help would be appreciated.

helpjimmy.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 12th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce an excellent 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.

beamerguy

helpjimmy wrote: »

Hello guys, ive recieved a county claim letter on behalf of euro parking services issued on the 09/11/18 for an alleged claim on the 23/11/2017. This is my first correspondence regarding this. the basis of the incident is the driver at the time,(who is not the keeper) parked on a local shop car park (Latif Stoke) as a patron and then left the store to visit a shop across the road, when the driver returned they had locked the car park and the driver could not retrieve the vehicle. The driver returned the next day and collected the vehicle with no PCN attached. As the keeper, i received no NTK or LBC, to which i could have responded to earlier. i have acknowledged the claim on MCOL which i intend to fully contest and i have followed the newbies guide as per the forum.

The store has since closed down and i have sold the vehicle also. Can somebody help me with a defence as im unsure how to proceed as reading through other posts, mine is quite a unique one.

This is a Gladstone solicitor client. and they are claiming £243 including all costs.

Do i have anything to contest or should i just pay?

Any help would be appreciated.

helpjimmy.

Do the signs clearly show that the car park closed between certain times ????

Who is the parking company ?

This is the incompetent Gladstones again and you do not owe £243, Gladstones add fake amounts to their claim which come from pretend debt collector charges.
Gladstones are trying to extort money from you

helpjimmy

Do the signs clearly show that the car park closed between certain times ????

Who is the parking company ?

This is the incompetent Gladstones again and you do not owe £243, Gladstones add fake amounts to their claim which come from pretend debt collector charges.
Gladstones are trying to extort money from you

The store has closed, and parking signs now have been removed, so i honestly couldn't tell you.

The parking company is Euro Parking Services.

beamerguy

helpjimmy wrote: »

The store has closed, and parking signs now have been removed, so i honestly couldn't tell you.

The parking company is Euro Parking Services.

OK, in the Gladstones claim, have they provided pictures

helpjimmy

OK, in the Gladstones claim, have they provided pictures

Nope, all theyve provided is a small bit of infomation in the particulars of claim box, which youve probably seen on every post regarding gladstone claims. no specific proof otherwise.

The_Deep

£243 is far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors whom the PPCs engage know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and win, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

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.

Parking Eye, CPM, 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 has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It has even been suggested that some of these companies have links with organised crime.

Watch the video of the Second Reading and committee stage in the House of Commons recently. MPs have a very low opinion of this industry.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by in the not too distant future.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting

Coupon-mad

i have acknowledged the claim on MCOL which i intend to fully contest and i have followed the newbies guide as per the forum.

Good.

Almost everyone wins, and paying would be daft, seeing as the 1% who report a loss would pay LESS than is on the claim form, as long as they understand and prepare well and know at least to argue about the made up added £60 'indemnity costs if applicable' AND the made up £50 'legal costs', neither of which were actually expended; it's all invented to attempt double recovery.

Let's see your draft and you can start this roller coaster ride! No risk, no CCJ, nowt bad at stake.

helpjimmy

Anything in this sign that can help with the defence considering they locked the car into the carpark when the driver returned?

Link: i67.tinypic.com/2v9p3sk.jpg

Thanks in advance.

KeithP

Only a few days to go now.

Are you going to post a draft Defence for critique anytime soon?

helpjimmy

Only a few days to go now.

Are you going to post a draft Defence for critique anytime soon?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES 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 at Latif Stoke, and as a patron of the store had valid cause to be parked there. The driver left the store and used another store across the road from the car park. No signs in the car park give any information regarding the car park to be locked at a certain time, as the driver returned to the vehicle, the car park had been locked. The driver then returned the next day and took the vehicle. No PCN was attached to the vehicle and the Defendant first heard of any alleged incident when N1 claim form was received in November 2018.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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. 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. Nor does it as mentioned in point 2. That the car park is to be locked after a certain time.

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. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

Any critique would be more than helpful, thanks again.