Gladstones Claim Form Received

MessyPup

Hi,

a couple of day ago I received a court claim form that had been issued by PCM\Gladstones claiming parking charges incurred for parking in my entitled residential parking space without displaying a permit.
I have completed the AOS and begun the process of selecting an appropriate defence from source(s) cited by more learned members on the forum that I have followed over the years I have been battling with PCM\Gladstone over the issue of residents right to parking as stated explicitly on the sign posts erected by the the landlord and that were there before CPM's signs.

Once I have something written and posted I would really appreciate if I could possibly get some constructive feedback from some of more learned members on this forum.

Many Thanks,
MP

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did it come from the County County Business Centre in Northampton, or somewhere else?

MessyPup

Thanks for the prompt response.

Date of issue 10 Dec 2018.

Redx

and the originator (like he asked earlier) , please answer all questions , otherwise this will get tedious and long winded if we have to drag it out of you to cover the basics

NORTHAMPTON ? , or Salford ? , or somewhere else ?

MessyPup

Apologies,

Yes, it did come from County Court Business Centre, 4th Floor ST KATHARINE'S HOUSE.... NORTHAMPTON NN1 2LH.

KeithP

MessyPup wrote: »

Date of issue 10 Dec 2018.

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th December, you have until Monday 31st December to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL].

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Monday 14th January 2019 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect 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 [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

MessyPup

Season Greetings.

I been doing quite a bit of researching trying to find a defence for a claim similar to my own and think I found one.
I've adapted it as required and would be grateful if one or more of the more experienced and knowledgable members could give it some constructive critique.

Many Thanks In Advance.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXXXXX
Between
[NAME OF PARKING COMPANY] (Claimant)

-and-

[NAME OF DEFENDANT] (Defendant)


__________
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 [DATE]. 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 ‘[LOCATION]’. The Defendant has, since [DATE], held legal title under the terms of a tenancy agreement, to Flat No. XX at that location. At some point in [YEAR}, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The car parking area contains unallocated parking spaces demised to all residents on a first come first serve basis. Any resident/visitor vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

5. Under the terms of the Defendant’s tenancy agreement, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles. The definitions, clause 22, define an “Authorised Vehicle” as one which is taxed, roadworthy. In clause 22 the definition also states that fire access points must be kept clear of vehicles at all times. The definition, clause 23 states only minor vehicle repairs are allowed on the Premises or any land belonging to the Landlord. There are no terms within the tenancy agreement requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

6. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the tenancy agreement. 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 tenancy agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Claimant, or Landlord, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the tenancy agreement, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the tenants, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

8. Further and in the alternative, there are two different types of signs displayed at the location. The original signs authorised by the Landlord and erected in XXXX, refer to ‘Resident Parking Only’. The later signs, erected in 2015, state ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, which the Defendant’s vehicle clearly was, as per clause 22 of the tenancy agreement. In any event, the proximity of signs setting out different terms is ambiguous and falls foul of the contra proferentem rule.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

………………………………………………………. (Defendant)
………………………(Date)

Le_Kirk

7. The Claimant, or Landlord, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the tenancy agreement, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the tenants with no more than 10% voting against, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

Doesn't seem as if you need it however, see the edit above.

JSmyth

Hi there

I have had an ongoing nightmare with a PCN for a reason they won't give from a company called District Enforcement LTD. They are crooks! A lot of these companies use Gladstones, I followed procedures when I received the claim form and was not given a chance to file for defense and was given a CCJ. They are trying to rob me of £260!!

Honestly - they are ruthless - take then to court if you can and hopefully you will win, they are robbing people of money for absolutely no reason.

Good luck!

The_Deep

JSmyth, perhaps we can help you if you start your own thread.

MessyPup

Hi Le_Kirk,

Thanks for reviewing and critiquing my draft defence, really appreciate the help. I will added the suggested modification for the sake of completeness and fill in the details specific to my case before sending it off.

Thanks to all who have directly or indirectly contributed to my assistance.