Gladstone County Court Claim

Umkomaas

I think you need to read what legally qualified (and expert in handling small claims court private parking cases) bargepole has to say about concise defences. I think you need to further review yours in light of his advice.

Link in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2.

KeithP

Redx wrote: »

KeithP will probably tell you the exact time and date, as long as your DATE OF ISSUE was the 10th DEC 2018

Already done that on one of the OP's many other threads.

azz007

I already got the local mp involved months ago when the popla appeal was unsuccessful. The MP even wrote to the PPC but were having none of it.

Same with Also emails Sir Greg knights office. And said would use the evidence even more so to back the bill.

azz007

Umkomaas wrote: »

I think you need to read what legally qualified (and expert in handling small claims court private parking cases) bargepole has to say about concise defences. I think you need to further review yours in light of his advice.

Link in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2.

I don't quite understand what you mean? What legally qualified?

They are claiming £630 so I need as good defence as possible.

Also I sent the SAR to MB and then emailed Gladstone
For a restriction of data processing. They have declined this and said..

Unfortunately we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing of your data which override the interests, rights and freedoms of you as an individual. That legitimate interest being that act on behalf of our client for the recovery of monies relating to unpaid parking charge notices..

Redx

BARGEPOLE is legally qualified as he has done his CILEX training , prepared documents for other cases like BEAVIS and UHCW and been involved in many other cases as a lay rep or advisor

read his resume under his name

read all the half a dozen or more posts he has made over the last few months where he has honed some defences, in fact read all of his 2018 posts like I have done (and probably Umkomaas has done too)

this forum is not a legal forum and has few people with legal training or experience, never mind they are overworked and underpaid

read my post here too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75126216&postcount=46

you want expert legal advice for free , on a non-legal consumer forum where only a few volunteers help out, many with no qualifications at all

I told you to tell the driver to stop parking there at the time , to try to avoid a multi-ticket court case , plus you have had that year to read all about these things and learn from other peoples experiences, plus all the posts by LOC123 , Johnnersh , coupon_mad , Iamemanresu , Nosferatu and BARGEPOLE etc , yet you appeat to have avoided coming here since those losses until this court claim arrived, not seen you helping anyone else in the meantime either

in your defence, object to all the added costs, because as you say it doesnt add up and they may not have paid those legal costs and probably cannot charge them under the CPR rules for small claims

they have inflated it over the £600 figure so its easy to get a high court writ if you lose and dont pay, at which point you may feature on channel five

azz007

version 2 thoughts please,

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESSS CENTRE

CLAIM No. DXXXXXXX

Between:
Minster Baywatch Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
Mr xxxxxx (Defendant)

___________
DEFENCE
__________

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant was the registered 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 identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
2a. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2b.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 Defendant has already successfully won appeal against the Claimant on a previous occasion for parking charge xxxx issued on xx/12/2017 which are based on similar grounds.

4. The defendant has purchased land registry documents from HM Land Registry which shows the Claimant does not have Landowner authority to issue parking charges.

5. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

6. The defendant has visited the said car park as a result of this claim. It was noticed that there is no signage at the entrances to the site from the main road and within the car park itself. Photos and video footage are to be presented as evidence in this case, illustrating how the site suffers from poor signage and notifications.

7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
· Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
· The Claimant described the charge of £70.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

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. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to a total of £4XX. The defendant submits that the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further, Gladstones Solicitors Limited appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

10. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point; how is it possible to have two parking charges on the same date?
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 greement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

11. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

12. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

13. I would like the Court to take note that the defendant was then aggressively harassed by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite not being liable for these made up costs.

14. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim. Again, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.
(Defendant) (Date)

azz007

bumping for comments , want to submit soon as by xmas. , id imagine there will be a backlog after new years

Le_Kirk

Your point 1. appears to be a repeat of your opening sentence (in which you use the "I" word, whereas the rest of your defence is, quite rightly, written the third person) so I would rework that, maybe by looking at Bargepole's concise defence (search for it).
Point 2. should say "has already won an appeal" and later on "which is based"
Point 4 & 5 should be combined by first introducing the concept of landowner authority and then going on to say why you proved there is none.
Point 10. should be reworked as it is repetitious and the first sentence does not state what "terms" you are talking about.

I am not a lawyer so give no legal basis for what I have said but I have read a lot of defences on this forum and use that experience to assist you.

The_Deep

4. The defendant has purchased land registry documents from HM Land Registry which shows the Claimant does not have Landowner authority to issue parking charges.

Hang on, do they really say that?

azz007

The_Deep wrote: »

4. The defendant has purchased land registry documents from HM Land Registry which shows the Claimant does not have Landowner authority to issue parking charges.

Hang on, do they really say that?

well basically the area the vehicle was parked on, it shows on the land reg MB dont cover that area with the outlines higlighted,, so shouldnt be issuing any tickets whatsoever.

their version they sent me after the loss with popla. clearly shows its been edited to highlight the area they 'say' they cover, where the vehicle was parked.

how can i add images onto this thread, without external link