CPM & Gladstones Solicitors County court claim

lyfu

Hi, so i have to submit a defence by tomorrow.

I already acknowledged the service which gave me extra 2 weeks. the issue date was 08 NOVEMBER 2018 I know i left it late but I've been really busy with university and I'm failing that as well.
A year ago I parked outside my flat that I was renting(you need a permit to park there which I didn't have). I was unloading for no more than 15 mins (they dont have proof that i was there for longer) but i told them that thats how long i was parking for in my appeal to them.

This is my appeal letter
"Dear CPM, Hi, I got a ticket for parking next to my flat

---

when I was parking there for around 15 minutes because I was unpacking the rest of my stuff. The agency told me that it’s alright to park there to unpack. I think it’s very unfair to charge me £100 for this, even £60 is a lot of money. If you would like I can pay £4 which is more than the nearest car park charges for an hour."

My agency also told me that it was alright to park there but just for the first month of moving in, this happened after that month.

and this is the reply from them CPM
imgur.com/a/2Bhpx

SO now i have i have a letter from court.
The particulars of claim are
"The driver of the vehicle registration XXX incurred the parking charge(s) on [date] for breaching the terms of parking at [place]. The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for parking charges/damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £12.29 pursuant to s69 of the Count Courts Act 1984 at 8%pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.”



My really bad 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 in an unmarked bay at XXXX

3. 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.

4. The Defendant denies that any contract was formed between the driver and the Claimant because the defendant only stopped outside of his rented flat for less than 15 mins to unload groceries and other items.
a. No terms were agreed by the driver
b. 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.
c. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract

5. 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.
6. 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
7. The defendant had a right-of-way to enable him to access the property, and that the right to stop for a few moments or minutes to put down passengers or unload awkward items was a necessary incident of this easement. The position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728.

I'm aware that i need to include Jopson v Homeguard but i dont know what to pick out, could someone help me?

KeithP

Hi, so i have to submit a defence by tomorrow.

...the issue date was 08 NOVEMBER 2018

You have a little more time than you think.

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 nearly a week to go. Lots of time to hone your Defence to perfection, 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 [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

lyfu

KeithP wrote: »

You have a little more time than you think.

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 nearly a week to go. Lots of time to hone your Defence to perfection, 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 , and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

Thank you so much for this, do you have any ideas on what I should change ?

nosferatu1001

Have you read the sticky thread you were pointed to? Yes or no
If yes, what parts of the thread do yo unot get?

The_Deep

Have you read this?

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf

You are right, it is a very bad defence. There are loads of far better "own space" defences on here which you can copy. Especially read up on "Primacy of Contract", and complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

lyfu

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Have you read the sticky thread you were pointed to? Yes or no
If yes, what parts of the thread do yo unot get?

I have read it, I don't understand what I need to put in my defence.

The_Deep wrote: »

Have you read this?



You are right, it is a very bad defence. There are loads of far better "own space" defences on here which you can copy. Especially read up on "Primacy of Contract", and complain to your MP.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

I've read jopson vs homeguard but I dont know what to pick out. I know its a scam, but people pay the £60 just to avoid the hassle. If I could go back in time and pay the £60 i would do it in a heartbeat because this is stressing me out so much. Especially because all of my uni assignments are also due in this week.

lyfu

Heres my latest draft, could someone please take a look?


DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to “Parking Charge(s)” incurred on 25/10/2017 . However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state “The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle”, which indicates 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.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as ‘xxx’. The Defendant has, since 01/09/2017, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No.1 at that location.

4. The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents who paid an extra fee and have a valid permit. On the day, 3 out of the 4 spaces were available. The defendant only stopped outside of his rented flat for less than 15 mins to unload groceries and other items, therefore this didn’t affect any other resident.

5. The driver was allowed the right to load/unload by a leasehold resident. This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.

6. Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’.

7. In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.

8. The reason for this parking company's presence on this site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder businesses and residents. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.

9. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant’s signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

10. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant’s position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the ‘legitimate interest’ in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

11. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

12. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.