UKCPM, Gladstones. Not displaying a valid permit. Should I ignore until LBC?

Jones578

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You might want to search the forum for a thread about Abuse of Process posted by beamerguy and commented on in post # 14 of that thread by Coupon-mad, which adds a significant portion of defence points based on cases being struck out in IOW and Southampton because claimants had added the mythical £60 costs.

Thank you for pointing me to this new thread. I am thinking to replace Point 6 in my draft defence with the below.

6. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. It should be considered an ABUSE OF PROCESS as further explained below:
6.1 CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
6.2 Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
6.3 The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.
6.4 Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.
6.5 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
6.6 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.
6.7 Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
6.8 In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
6.9 There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
6.10 The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

It is making the Point 6 a lot longer than the other paragraphs though...

Any comments?

Le_Kirk

It's what defendants are using now. It has been suggested by poster Johnersh, who is a solicitor, that you don't need to have all that detail in defences, just headlines and then use the rest of it in a Witness Statement. Check out this for more info.

Jones578

Le_Kirk wrote: »

It's what defendants are using now. It has been suggested by poster Johnersh, who is a solicitor, that you don't need to have all that detail in defences, just headlines and then use the rest of it in a Witness Statement. Check out this for more info.

Thanks for the comment!

I have removed the long sub-paragraphs and re-ordered some of them as below:

1. The Defendant was the vehicle's hirer and keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is a visitor of the resident of the Edition Development, and has displayed a visitor parking permit at the time of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The signage that was present next to the alleged parking space, which forms the basis of the current claim, displayed a clear ‘P’ and would, therefore, suggest the space was allocated for the ‘P’ parking permit, which the Defendant clearly displayed in the vehicle. The ‘SO’ sign that Claimant referred in their letter to the resident was printed on the ground and could not be easily identified once a vehicle was parked. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a visitor with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.
3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
4. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. It may constitute an Abuse of Process.
5. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not specify what are the terms breached by the driver of the vehicle. As such, the Claim fails to meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies what the terms were and how they were breached.
6. 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.
7. The claim includes interest charge but does not include dates used for calculation. As such, this is in breach of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (2)
8. 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.

Any further comments...?

I wonder how long does a court normally process this and when I will need to provide a Witness Statement?

Le_Kirk

See NEWBIE sticky post # 2 for full details of the court process and see a link of "What happens and when"

Jones578

Thanks. I have checked the newbie post and I think I'm supposed to receive a Directions Questionnaire from the court following the submission of my Defence?

However, so far I have only received an acknowledgement letter from the court that confirmed the receipt of my Defence on 19/8. There were no letters from the court or Gladstones yet.

As the court acknowledgement letter said

Where he (Gladstones) wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay.

Does it mean that if I do not receive anything in post by next Monday (16/9, i.e., 28 days after my Defence was submitted on 19/8), then the claim will be stayed?

What can I do to lift the stay?

nosferatu1001

Yes, no need to think, you know.

The C has 28 days to confirim if they want to continue the claim
Why not just send in your own downloaded N180? Takes seconds.

It MIGHT be stayed because they had 28 days to repsond OT THE COURT NOT YOU and the court can take time.

Le_Kirk

Jones578 wrote: »

What can I do to lift the stay?

Why would you want to do that? If the claim is stayed, the claimant has to jump through hoops to get it live again. It is GOOD for you if it is stayed.

Jones578

Following the submission of my N180 form in early October, I received a letter from the County Court in late November that states they have struck out the case without hearing on the ground that it does not comply with CPR PD16.7.3.4 or 5!

I have uploaded the letter here for your information (with personal info covered): https://www.dropbox.com/s/l1wdbpq9b2cd53w/2019.11.20%20Struck%20out%20letter.pdf?dl=0

However, about a week after I receive the letter from the county court, I received an email from Gladstones that contains a Particulars of Claim: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g6kl9z2seacnz08/2019.11.28%20Gladstones%20Solicitors%20-%20Particulars%20of%20Claim.pdf?dl=0
The email stated they have also filed this with the court.

Does it mean they are appealing to the court's decision? Do I need to do anything about it?

I noticed they have made a mistake in the PoC though: under the 'Registered Keeper' section, they stated 'the Defendant is the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle', however it was actually a rental car and I was only the hirer at that time.

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

You know what it means because the Court Order said they can do this, to lift the stay. So, the case now continues and you will receive Directions in the new year with a court date, and the date by which all parties must file & serve their WS and evidence.

While you wait, search the forum and read other UKCPM cases ahead of your stage. If you don't know the relevance of 'Jack Chapman signature' as a search term then use it now and read...

Secondly, read CEC16's thread which is not about UKCPM but tells you something important for WS stage.

Jones578

Hi all, thank you for your helps, I have received a letter from the court before Christmas. It confirmed the hearing would be allocated to 11 February 2020 and Gladstones have to pay their fee by 4pm today (14 Jan) to proceed.

Gladstones sent me an email on last Wednesday (8/1) and said they were 'willing to settle the matter for the sum of £180'...
By the sound of it, I thought they would still go ahead and I have therefore started putting together my Witness Statement. I was actually getting slightly excited when I was drafting my Schedule of Costs...

However, I just received an email from Gladstones a few minutes ago, which contained a Notice of Discontinuance, stating the claimant would like to discontinue the claim!

I believe that is all!? Since the case did not actually go that far, I suppose I cannot submit a counterclaim to them at this stage?

Many thanks for everyone's help. You guys have been amazing!