IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Claim from UKCP/Gladstone
Options
Rosie_apples
Posts: 56 Forumite
Hello all
Background - early 2018 husband parked on land a ‘traffic warden’ had told him wasn’t managed as it was private (back of a pub that was closed down and for sale) there was poor/no signage; he got a ticket one day and ignored it. We’ve had all the usual letters and naively ignored them until we are now at the Claim stage, issue date 25th Feb. I did a SAR and received a few photos that didn’t show very much but my hubby, being a bit of a techno phobe, deleted the email!!!! Anyway I’ve submitted the AOS and am now working on the defence.
I’ve read lots of stuff and I’d like to think I’ve read #2 of the newbies sticky well enough to have had a good stab at this although I’m not confident.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx xxx in question at the time of the alleged incident.
3.The Claim Form issued on the xxxxxxxx by xxxxxxx was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by Civil Enforcement Limited as the Claimant’s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.
4. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
4.1. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. 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. I further submit that the signage within this area was not prominent and it was unclear which land it pertained to and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
6. 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.
No standing or landowner authority
7. 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 under defined parameters and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
No legitimate interest or commercial justification
8. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing defendant for a hundredfold penalty, for the ordinary and reasonable conduct explained in this defence.
8.1. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.
Unconscionable sum claimed - double recovery - abuse of process
9. 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.
9.1 In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of its claim by adding purported but unsupported damages, admin, debt collector and interest, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred at all. The claim flows from an alleged (already hugely inflated) contractual parking charge of £100 but the sum on the claim form is more than two times this sum. The Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.
10. The Claimant is a serial offender on this regard and must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC LocumsUKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
10.1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, where the sparse cut & paste particulars are embarrassing and give rise to no recognisable claim in law.
11. When Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) or alternatively, for the hearing fee to be ordered to be paid before exchange of documents between the parties, because where a claim from this serial Claimant is robustly defended, this Claimant routinely discontinues after seeing a Defendant's Witness Statement and never pays the court hearing fee.
12. It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Defendant to spend hours on their defence against a vexatious litigant who then discontinues. Research shows that this Claimant is regularly observed as being in pursuit of default judgments to use as an aggressive form of debt collection, with no intention of paying for or attending the majority of hearings.
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:
Background - early 2018 husband parked on land a ‘traffic warden’ had told him wasn’t managed as it was private (back of a pub that was closed down and for sale) there was poor/no signage; he got a ticket one day and ignored it. We’ve had all the usual letters and naively ignored them until we are now at the Claim stage, issue date 25th Feb. I did a SAR and received a few photos that didn’t show very much but my hubby, being a bit of a techno phobe, deleted the email!!!! Anyway I’ve submitted the AOS and am now working on the defence.
I’ve read lots of stuff and I’d like to think I’ve read #2 of the newbies sticky well enough to have had a good stab at this although I’m not confident.
Your thoughts would be appreciated.
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx xxx in question at the time of the alleged incident.
3.The Claim Form issued on the xxxxxxxx by xxxxxxx was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by Civil Enforcement Limited as the Claimant’s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.
4. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXX XXX when it was parked at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
4.1. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. 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. I further submit that the signage within this area was not prominent and it was unclear which land it pertained to and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
6. 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.
No standing or landowner authority
7. 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 under defined parameters and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
No legitimate interest or commercial justification
8. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing defendant for a hundredfold penalty, for the ordinary and reasonable conduct explained in this defence.
8.1. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.
Unconscionable sum claimed - double recovery - abuse of process
9. 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.
9.1 In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of its claim by adding purported but unsupported damages, admin, debt collector and interest, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred at all. The claim flows from an alleged (already hugely inflated) contractual parking charge of £100 but the sum on the claim form is more than two times this sum. The Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.
10. The Claimant is a serial offender on this regard and must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC LocumsUKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
10.1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, where the sparse cut & paste particulars are embarrassing and give rise to no recognisable claim in law.
11. When Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) or alternatively, for the hearing fee to be ordered to be paid before exchange of documents between the parties, because where a claim from this serial Claimant is robustly defended, this Claimant routinely discontinues after seeing a Defendant's Witness Statement and never pays the court hearing fee.
12. It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Defendant to spend hours on their defence against a vexatious litigant who then discontinues. Research shows that this Claimant is regularly observed as being in pursuit of default judgments to use as an aggressive form of debt collection, with no intention of paying for or attending the majority of hearings.
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:
:beer:
0
Comments
-
With a Claim Issue Date of 25th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st April 2019 to file your Defence.Rosie_apples wrote: »H...we are now at the Claim stage, issue date 25th Feb. Anyway I’ve submitted the AOS and am now working on the defence.
That's over two 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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
Get you MP on side, private parking scams are now brown bread.
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.
Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct
The problem become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. It received The Royal Assent today.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
UKPC using Gladstones, are you sure you've typed the right PPC here?
And errrrm? Here you say it's a different PPC who never use GladstonesIt states that it has been issued by Civil Enforcement Limited as the Claimant’s Legal Representative.
I think you have a claim from UKCPM and you need to read the concise defence examples in the NEWBIES thread by bargepole, as linked there (no link given here, go and read the NEWBIES 2nd post and don't copy a completely inappropriate defence).
Your eye for detail is needed, to defend a case properly.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for your help guys much appreciated; the claimant is UKCP with Gladstones as doc and payment address.
I'll get back to it and try to be tighter on what I'm saying.:beer:0 -
the claimant is UKCP
AFAIAA, no company of that name exists, do you mean UKCPS, or UKPC.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Thanks for your guidance, hopefully this is a more correct and concise defence. What do you think??
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 Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx xxx in question at the time of the alleged incident.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxxxx was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle xxxxx. 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.
4. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant's signage within this area was not prominent and it was unclear which land it pertained to.
6. 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.
7. 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.
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. 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.:beer:0 -
Surely you can retrieve the deleted SAR email in your deleted items folder?
I think the defence looks good as a base, but needs to say more about the location:(back of a pub that was closed down and for sale) there was poor/no signage
And if the allegation is 'no permit' you need to add something about there being no information about how to obtain a permit, and thus such a contractual term at this site is void for impossibility.
At best, it is a matter of trespass but a parking firm not in possession of the land cannot seek damages under tort of trespass. This is covered in lots of defences, including the one being worked on by Lpppparker (no link, look around the forum!).
Search the forum for PACE v Lengyel void for impossibility to crib from similar defences.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks Coupon mad, yes you'd think the SAR info would be retrievable but he really is an idiot....there isn't any deleted items!! Would it be detrimental if I just make the request again?
The POC is for 'breach of terms of parking stipulated on the signage' doesn't say anything about permits.
Think the defence is looking better with clearer details now??
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 in an off road unmarked area to the rear of an unoccupied public house.
3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxxxx was the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle xxxxx. 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.
4. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant's signage, detailing the terms of parking purported to have been breached, was absent from the off road land to the rear of the unoccupied public house on XXX Street where vehicle XXX was parked. 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 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.
7. 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
8. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: it is unclear whether the Claimant holds a legitimate contract at this private land. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.:beer:0 -
You'd have to pay for it a second time I expect - £10 - unless the recipient of the email just say the first one was corrupted and the attachments couldn't be opened so please can they re-forward it...Would it be detrimental if I just make the request again?
The allegation will be unauthorised parking without a permit. So you need to add the bits I said to add about Pace v Lengyel and that any terms about having permission from a closed pub, even if those terms had been seen, would be void for impossibility.
Have you read PACE v Lengyel like I told you to? You need to understand the Judge's transcript. Did you do this?Search the forum for PACE v Lengyel void for impossibility to crib from similar defences.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for your help Coupon-mad, I have now read the PACE v Lengyel and added the following at point 10 of my defence
Hope this is ok as I have to file this today!
10. In the alternative, any contract that was established was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance as the Defendant had no information how to obtain a valid parking permit and no means of securing one, as discussed in PACE Recovery and Storage v Lengyel. C7GF6E3R.
:beer:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 12 Election 2024: The MSE Leaders' Debate
- 344K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.1K Spending & Discounts
- 236.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 609.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.5K Life & Family
- 248.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards