Gladstones claim form

Lpppparker

Found it! I have amended and edited my defence. I'll be sending this off tonight so any other changes would be much appreciate- Thanks for all of your help so far




In The County Court


Claim No: XXXXXXX


Between


UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver 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 XXXXXXX. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private land’ parking spaces located. Given this lack of clarity and the fact there was no sufficient lighting to see these signs at night time when the Defendant arrived and parked, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.


3. The sign does not conform to the IPC's Code of Practice:
a. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 4), which states the signs should be “clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”; The sign located near the site entrance is unlit and therefore impossible to see at night by a driver in a passing vehicle.
b. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 5), which states the signage ought to “have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be”; Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017) showed that the Claimant's signs (including the one shown by the Claimant in this case) fail to enter into contract with the driver as implied by the Claimant. Nowhere on the sign does it inform the reader that by parking in xxxxxx, he/she is entering into a contract with the Claimant. The words “contract’ or “agreement’ do not appear at all within the sign. The phrase “Terms and Conditions” are not synonymous with a contract. Furthermore, the opening words of the sign appear to be designed more to ward off trespassers than to enter into a contract with the driver. 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.




4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

6. 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


7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: It is unclear whether the claimant holds a legitimate contract at this private road. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.





8. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.




9. The Defendant was authorised by a resident of the flat with a lease agreement, therefore was not unauthorised. The defendant in this case had no reason to conclude or agree that a parking charge applied to such a visitor.

10. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £160 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.

11. The Defendant questions that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper
Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts
leading from the landowner to Vehicle Control Services Limited and that Vehicle Control
Services Limited have the locus standi to bring this matter to court.

12. 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.

Statement of Truth:

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

Name
Signature

Coupon-mad

Move #9 up to become #4, as it will flow better there.

Delete #11 which repeats point #5, and your PPC is NOT 'Vehicle Control Services'!

Lpppparker

Hi all,


I have submitted my defence so will log on in a few days to see if it's been Defended.


Thank you for all of your advice and help so far!

Lpppparker

Hi all,


Just filling out my DQ and at the top it says "name of court"- Would this be the one I'm looking to have it be in or?


Read the DQ what to do on the newbies thread and couldn't see


Probably over thinking but wanted to clarify

KeithP

It doesn't matter what you put in there. Usually that will have been filled in by the court that sent the form to you - the CCBC.

When complete return the form to the CCBC using the same manner and email address that you used for your Defence.

Remembering of course to send a copy to the Claimant - address on your Claim Form.

Le_Kirk

This is not in the NEWBIE thread directly but if you follow the link that Bargepole created called: -

Here's a summary from bargepole of what happens when, what you MUST do in time, re the paperwork & deadlines:

........... you will find: -

•D1 = name of your local County Court – unless you are a Ltd company, the case files will be transferred there

Lpppparker

Morning all,


I have just had another claim form come through for a separate ticket (Same company, same car same location).


I think I saw on here previously that they have to do them all in one go if they were to take me to court?


If not, and I have to do another defence etc- Shall I make a new thread?


Thanks

Umkomaas

You acknowledge service and formulate your defence which should include reference to the fact that there is a similar (identical? same vehicle, same car park etc,?) claim now in play.

Read this post by Coupon-mad which has wording to suit.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=75701968&postcount=99

If the two cases are more or less the same, I don’t think there’s need for a second thread, especially if the defences are identical and you can get the two cases consolidated.

But if necessary you must defend each separately - work on that basis unless/until you get confirmation of consolidation.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your second Claim Form?

ParkingTicketGuy

Lpppparker wrote: »

Hi all,


Just filling out my DQ and at the top it says "name of court"- Would this be the one I'm looking to have it be in or?


Read the DQ what to do on the newbies thread and couldn't see


Probably over thinking but wanted to clarify

What happened in the end, as you have a very similar case with mine.
Have you just paid or you went through all the process with the court and everything?
Thank you in advance for your answer,