ES Parking / Gladstones

RedDevil12

Here is my defence please criticise as you see fit

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
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 at Seymour Grove Retail Park, for no more than the 90 mins allowed.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendants vehicle was parked and that the driver of the vehicle left the site after parking yet have failed to provide any evidence to suggest this, photos of the car in the car park even timed are not sufficient since the claim is that the car was parked and the driver left the site.

4. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles for Seymour Grove Retail Park, giving no definition of which shops are included in this, nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

5. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

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 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.

8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

beamerguy

RedDevil12 wrote: »

I have received court papers I am currently writing a defence. I have stated earlier that they have claimed the driver was parked in the car park but left the site which is the reason for the ticket

As you know, ANPR pictures cannot prove their claim

With ANPR, doubt there was a warden on site and if there was, is he a predator ? In today's world, very dodgy for the car park owner to have a photo stalker around.

Recently, there was a UKPC case kicked out of court for the same reason.

Gladstones probably don't have a clue about the claims they make as they are Robo Claims bods

I like your statement above. YES proof is required you left the site.
Get your costs schedule ready. Gladstones are currently taking 3-4 weeks to pay a costs claim.

RedDevil12

I have the wrong claimant details I have rectified this it is ES Parking Enforcement Ltd. Thanks to all who have contributed so far

The_Deep

Leaving site is a very difficult charge for a PPC to prove. Did all the occupants leave site? Did the PPC use their best endeavours to mitigate their loss? Was it an unfair term in a consumer contract, did they flout The Human Rights Act?

Read this

http://parkingfine-appeals.co.uk/vehicle-control-services-ltd/

and complain to your MP.

Umkomaas

Leaving site is a very difficult charge for a PPC to prove. Did all the occupants leave site? Did the PPC use their best endeavours to mitigate their loss?

With some of the tribes vomited from SUVs at our local supermarket (usually occupying Disabled bays) it would be like herding feral cats - too much even for a warden's best endeavours.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

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

RedDevil12

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you all the date was the 10th of December and I acknowledged online on the 18th because the court papers didn't get to me until the Friday the 14th of December.

The breakdown of the costs are as follows.

£166.70 ( initial £100 fine and £60 for Gladstones and £6.70 for interest )
£25 court fees
£50 Legal Representation fees
£241.70 total costs

I have produced my defence which is posted above.

RedDevil12

I think I have until the 14th of January to submit my defence but I am happy with what I have cobbled together above unless there is some advise about how I can make my defence more compelling.

KeithP

Yes you have your dates correct.

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th December and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th January 2019 to file your Defence.

Lots 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.

RedDevil12

Hello All,

So my case was heard yesterday. I pointed out the sign does not state what the site "Seymour Grove Retail Park" is and what shops are considered part of the site. I also advised that the sign does not state that any photos will be taken and so the fact these several photos exist means an entrapment vehicle operates taking pictures of people breaking the contract and the company therefore have no concept of mitigating loss.

The judge dismissed all of these points and upheld the claim so I now have to pay £260.

I have considered appealing but I now am of the opinion the law is not only blind but deaf. I should have gone down the avenue of Ibbotson vs VCS seeing as I am not sure that ES has the explicit contract to go after tresspass when they neither own or are given permission to persue these claims in their own name.

I will not appeal I have not been given a right to appeal but I have heard I could. I feel if I do the law is such that a high court judge would be likely to side with the arguments and judgment from the lower court,

Just wanted to keep you all up to date there is no glimmer of hope that ES Parking is going to cease there unrelenting policing of this car park. I will work together with Kate Green MP to make sure we can at least make their dealings as difficult as we can until the new parking law is brought in.