Claim Form for UK Car Park Management / Gladstones

wilsonf1

Hi there,

This is my first post and I will try and outline as clearly as possible the situation I am in and hopefully you can point me in the right direction as to what to do next.

My car was parked overnight on a road at my parents residential estate back in May 2018. My friend also lives on the estate and although I was aware that some people had received parking tickets, even for parking in their owns bays (by not displaying their residential permits), my friend had told me that the parking rules had been relaxed after a directive from the residents management company. (I am requesting this information from the company but I won't be relying on getting it!)

However I did get a PCN from parking on the road overnight.

My friend told me that a lot of residents were then getting these tickets again after the rules were re-enforced - but not paying for them.

Upon looking at this forum I got sucked in by the whole "robo-claims" culture of these companies and really didn't think this would go any further.

Well, it has. My bad! I now have a Claim Form and have to decide if I want to defend it or not. I would like to have a go as it's £250.

I know there multiple points to defend yourself on but from a simplistic point of view, arriving on the estate at night time (as I did), I believe their signage to be inadequate (small font, not lit up, and not in the drivers view).

Here are some links to to some images to highlight my point. My only gripe is my Pixel smartphone is the best on the market for night time photography so it actually makes the white signs look better than they are in real life! But you can see how hard they are to read, particularly turning into the road from the left (brick wall obstructs any view of the estate until you are in it), there is no way I would have seen that sign up on that post!

https://imgur.com/a/34oaGeG

https://imgur.com/a/UpBL4Tj


I know the first step is the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE.

Can anyone offer some advice on the defence please? I'd really appreciate it.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

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

wilsonf1

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

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

Hi Kieth. It's Feb 25th and yes it's an official letter from CCBC Northampton.

KeithP

wilsonf1 wrote: »

It's Feb 25th and yes it's an official letter from CCBC Northampton.

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th February, you have until Monday 18th March 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 the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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 the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

wilsonf1

Thank you for that clear advice.

Is it recommended to do AOS online through the gateway rather than post the form back? Is it just convinience thing?

Also - I have read a lot of the defences pasted on here. Some are so long with multiple points. Some are easy enough to follow, but some have jargon in them that I cannot understand if they are relevant to my situation.

Am I best giving it a go and add as much as possible, and hopefully someone here will tell me to remove if irrelevant?

KeithP

wilsonf1 wrote: »

Is it recommended to do AOS online through the gateway rather than post the form back? Is it just convinience thing?

It's an automatic thing - almost foolproof.
By doing the AoS online via MCOL you avoid all the opportunities for you little paper form to get lost, misfiled or otherwise mishandled - be that by Royal Mail or within the office building that is the County Court Business Centre.

wilsonf1 wrote: »

Also - I have read a lot of the defences pasted on here. Some are so long with multiple points. Some are easy enough to follow, but some have jargon in them that I cannot understand if they are relevant to my situation.

Am I best giving it a go and add as much as possible, and hopefully someone here will tell me to remove if irrelevant?

Yes, give it your best shot.
There are several examples in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread (link to that thread in my earlier post). Pay particular attention to those concise Defences by Bargepole.

Post your draft Defence on here for critique when you are ready.

But do keep an eye on the deadlines.

wilsonf1

Hi Keith!

I'm home from my holiday and have a draft defence to post here - all but one main point I need to do. It's the "facts of the matter" which need to be specific per claim, not copied from another.

I've looked through all my paperwork and don't seem to have the original letters sent by Gladstones, just the letters before claim.

I have the option to create an account on Gladstones which I think would give me access to the claim - do you recommend I do that first?

Appreciate your reply!

Coupon-mad

No need to register with them at the mo. The facts of the matter will be what you know about the location and whether you admit to driving, and info like this, and mentioning that the car was de facto 'authorised' as a visitor of residents:

arriving on the estate at night time (as I did), I believe their signage to be inadequate (small font, not lit up, and not in the drivers view).

One of bargepole's concise defences is about a residential car park where the car was authorised - albeit you will need to change the words to make sense for a visitor.

There is a visitor/residential defence on here from this week, I recall reading it, so why not also search this forum for visitor bays defence true and read it/crib from other ones like it that come up in the result?

I know you were NOT in a visitor bay BTW...that's not the point, the idea is to find defences to crib from, you will soon be sorted!

Also include this and lay it on thick that residents have been beleaguered by this private nuisance for months - with huge numbers of complaints to the Managing Agents - and that you will provide witnesses who can confirm the misery this predatory company has created and proof of their primacy of contract/lease that has no mention of permits for them or their visitors:

the parking rules had been relaxed after a directive from the residents management company. (I am requesting this information from the company)

wilsonf1

Thank you Coupon-Mad and KeithP so far. I've had a good go at this. Is point 8 ok to use or shall I delete it:



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:!

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (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 Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)” These assertions indicate 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. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.!

3. 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 agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, the terms on the Claimant's signage are 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.!

5. In preparing this defence and examining the entrance signage it appears the driver would have to rely upon a sign facing incoming cars, which stated “Parking Conditions” clearly offering no contract and no chargeable terms. As well as all the above, the signage at the entrance of the site is unlit and this makes it impossible to read at night to someone in a moving vehicle as per this case. If there was another sign with other terms, it was not prominent (not seen at all) and there was no reason to expect a circumspect driver to seek out more signs. And no lawful reason to conclude that the parking decision and conduct of the driver meant that a charge had been accepted or agreed.

6. The Claimant’s entrance signage is not at driver eye level, points towards cars entering the estate from the right and not the left, with details and terms in exceptionally small print, as can be seen in evidence photos. The positioning, font size and height mean that the sign is hard to read even if a visitor knows where to find it.

7. 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 (as can be seen in evidence photos) 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”; Nowhere on the sign does it inform the reader that by parking in Mary Munnion, 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. 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

8. The defendant believes that the claimant does not have advertisement/planning consent for its ’signage’, which is a criminal offence. It cannot rely on an unlawful act (the unlawful display of signs) to bring an action.!

9. It should be obvious from the above that signage at this location is entirely inadequate, misleading and incapable of creating a contract with the Defendant. The Claimant cannot place a sign out of sight and expect the driver to see a sign which has been placed there unlit or to spot further signs, which have been placed at an inadequate height and in an inadequate lighting.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. I can provide numerous witness statements from residents of the estate that the parking rules were scrapped with no fixed end date around the date/time of the PCN. I have contacted the property management company in charge ‘Firstport Property Services Limited’ who have also confirmed the rules were scrapped for a period of time but they have been unable to give me an exact start and end date despite numerous attempts for the information. The residents of Mary Munnion have repeatedly been confused by the changing nature of the rules and implementation of these ‘Parking Conditions’ on the estate.

13. 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

Coupon-mad

Is it here?

https://goo.gl/maps/pzGdddgrPxr

Illegible sign and nothing to suggest that one road is 'private land' as opposed to Wood Street, on approach.

wilsonf1

That's exactly it and up to date. Would you recommend any tweaks?