Court Claim Form

shansw1

Hiya



I have been on the forum for a couple of hours now and have obtained loads of useful information but still feel like I'm in over my head. I recieved a letter from Gladstones 20/09 demanding the sum of £160 within 14 days acting on behalf of Parking Control Management. This was the first I knew of having a parking conviction as a PCN was not displayed on my windscreen. I contacted the solicitor via phone and they explained that they had sent a postal PCN to my old address (they got my details via DVLA). I didn't appeal at this stage as I was advised to ignore them. I now have a claim from Northampton Business centre I have sent back acknowledgment of service but I am already 2 days late so I only have until the 10th of Dec to build a defence. I am happy to pay the original £60 as I was parked in wrong place but it seems unfair to pay £242.69 (added court fees). Please could someone help with following questions....



1) I have no idea the date the original PCN was issued do I have time to request a SAR?

2) If a PCN is not displayed on a windscreen is this following POAF.



Thanks...

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Redx

yes do a SAR, to the PPC , ASAP


also post the DATE OF ISSUE BELOW, plus the full POC including the charges being claimed as well


no , a windscreen ticket does not have to be left, its not mandatory, neither is POFA2012 either, BUT if they fail to follow POFA2012 it may be harder to win in court

The_Deep

I recieved a letter from Gladstones 20/09 demanding the sum of £160 within 14 days

Bad boys, they have to allow you 30 days, and jump through lots of hoops, I wonder what else was wrong with the claim.

£242 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.

shansw1

Issue date 7th Nov


POC- The driver of the vehicle registration (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge(s) on 03/03/2018 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxx.

The defendant was was the driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160 forparking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £7.69 pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to judgment ao £0.04 per day.

KeithP

shansw1 wrote: »

Issue date 7th Nov.

When did you do the Acknowledgement of Service?
It should've been done by Monday 26th November.
Did you do the AoS via MCOL?


If your AoS has been accepted - check on MCOL, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's less than two weeks. Plenty of time to produce a good 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.

shansw1

Not sure what grounds to defend myself on any ideas anyone?? Will it stand up in a court of law that I hadn’t notified the DVLA of my change of address, sorry I have no idea what I’m doing!! Please help?

KeithP

Why not start be reading some of the example Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to get an idea of what's expected?

I've already given you a link to that thread.

You seem to have overlooked the questions I asked in my most recent post.

shansw1

[FONT=&quot]Hi I have drafted a defence letter please could someone let me know what they think of it and whether I have a good chance?
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In reply to Keith P. I submitted my AOS on Wed 28th Nov. I haven't checked to see if it has been accepted on MCOL but will do that now. I was told over the phone by Northampton business centre to email my AOS to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the County Court Business Centre[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Claim Number:

Between:

Gladstone Limited v ___

Defence!Statement

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 20th September 2018 by Gladstones Limited was not
correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by “Gladstones Limited (Claimant’s Legal Representative)”.

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of 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 me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.!

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £242.69 for outstanding debt and damages.

4. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.!

5. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

6. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.

c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) 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.
(ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) 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.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the!font!size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

8. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

9. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

10. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 7th November 2018.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed

[/FONT]

bargepole

This Defence is utter rubbish.

Gladstones are not the claimant, the parking operator is.

It is 'Defence', not 'Defence Statement'

The defence contains no facts, and is just a mish-mash of mostly irrelevant quasi-legal arguments copied from old templates, which the OP probably doesn't understand.

Back to the drawing board.

Coupon-mad

This Defence is utter rubbish.

Awww that's harsh, bargepole! Bah humbag...!

It is based on a horribly old one though, and the OP should just adapt one of yours from the NEWBIES thread post #2.