county court claim form

Eminowa

i am really new to this thread, so please be nice and gentle with me if i ask the wrong or rubbish questions, i have read most thread on here, but a bit confused how best to start my situation
Here it goes, i just received a county court claim form from Gladstones Solicitors LTD, they have issued me a county court claim against me saying i owe them money for outstanding PCN ticket dated back to 12/07/18 at a residential car park.
now on this said date my vehicle was parked on a residential car park meant for residents only as the driver of my vehicle was a legit visitor, who had gone to nurse his client who was living at this block of flat at the time, so he always park on their car park, the driver finished work to find a parking ticket on my vehicle windscreen issued by Link Parking Ltd.
now i got a letter from the county court business centre, Northampton through Gladstones soliticor claiming outstanding PCN plus interest on the 20/03/19. below is the particluars of the claim
"The driver of the vehicle with registartion XXXXXXX (the vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at XYZ on the 12/07/18 thus incurring the parking charge (the PCN). the driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28days of issue yet failed to do. The claimiant claims the upaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS.
£100 for the PCN, £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with the statutory interest of £7.44 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day".
The amount in total they are claiming is £242.44, and this is their breakdown,
Amount claimed : £164.44
Court fee :£25.00
Legal Representative costs : £50
Total :£242.44
Please what do i do at this stage as i am yet to respond to the the county court within 14days

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Eminowa

The county court claim was issuesed from conuty court business centre, Northampton on the 18th of march 2019.

Coupon-mad

Link Parking Ltd.

Please what do i do at this stage as i am yet to respond to the the county court within 14days

KeithP will summarise what you must do, but please go to the second post of the NEWBIES thread and read it (NOT the first post there about appealing).

KeithP

Eminowa wrote: »

The county court claim was issuesed from conuty court business centre, Northampton on the 18th of march 2019.

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th March, you have until Monday 8th April 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 Tuesday 23rd April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month 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 "defence received". 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.

Eminowa

DEFENCE: (planned to be filed before 26th March)

1. The Defendant is xxxx and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxxx on 20/10/2018. There is no clear cause of action shown in the Particulars of Claim and liability for this charge, or any sum at all claimed by this Claimant, is denied for the following reasons:

2 ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording set out in Schedule 4, Section 9 (f) POFA. And, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

3. Even if the Defendant is found to be liable under the POFA 2012, that law only permits a claimant to recover no more than the sum stated on the PCN. It is submitted that any added fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

4. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Link parking Ltd, and no proof has been provided despite several requests in writing by the Defendant to the Claimant’s solicitors before and after the Letter before claim.

5. The purported Letter before claim can be seen to miss the following information:

a. A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b. A list of the relevant documents on which the Defendant intends to rely
c. How the “charge amount” of £160 has been calculated and justified.
d. Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
e. Copies of the documents upon which their Client intends to rely, including the purported contract they allege was breached.

6. The Claimant’s signs are in small print, the terms are illegible. And so no contract was formed with the driver to pay £60, £100, £160 or any sum at all, since the signs have no legible ‘charge’ which could be visible on arrival and the wording is prohibitive and in any event. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver who was not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they - and this Defendant- would later be pursued. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen then there can be no contract (the Defendant relies upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000 in this regard).

7. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence in that the Defendant was the driver (not so here).

8. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and the Pre-action Protocol. It merely provides a date, location, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Gladstones have also added ‘Legal representative’s costs’ of £50. I propose these have not been incurred by the claimant but artificially invented in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof to explain why they have failed to comply with the Protocol and why Gladstones appear to consider themselves and their clients to be immune from the rules of the court, which bind every other litigant.

10. The Claimant has failed to follow the Code of Practice (CoP) of their Trade Body, as regards clear signage and acting in a professional manner to ensure that action is not taken without any cause. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that such a CoP is effectively 'regulation' full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping a note of wasted time and costs so far in dealing with this matter, with a view to claiming any reasonable losses connected with defending this claim and attending any hearings.

12. Based on the above reasons, the Court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.



(Name) (Signature) (Date)

here is my defence. please i need comments and advice...before i submit it thanks

Eminowa

DEFENCE: (planned to be filed before 26th March)

1. The Defendant is xxxx and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxxxxx on 20/10/2018. There is no clear cause of action shown in the Particulars of Claim and liability for this charge, or any sum at all claimed by this Claimant, is denied for the following reasons:

2 ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice and/or Notice to Keeper failed to comply with the statutory wording set out in Schedule 4, Section 9 (f) POFA. And, further, that the signs failed to provide ‘adequate notice’ of any charge. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

3. Even if the Defendant is found to be liable under the POFA 2012, that law only permits a claimant to recover no more than the sum stated on the PCN. It is submitted that any added fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

4. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Link parking Ltd, and no proof has been provided despite several requests in writing by the Defendant to the Claimant’s solicitors before and after the Letter before claim.

5. The purported Letter before claim can be seen to miss the following information:

a. A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b. A list of the relevant documents on which the Defendant intends to rely
c. How the “charge amount” of £160 has been calculated and justified.
d. Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
e. Copies of the documents upon which their Client intends to rely, including the purported contract they allege was breached.

6. The Claimant’s signs are in small print, the terms are illegible. And so no contract was formed with the driver to pay £60, £100, £160 or any sum at all, since the signs have no legible ‘charge’ which could be visible on arrival and the wording is prohibitive and in any event. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver who was not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they - and this Defendant- would later be pursued. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen then there can be no contract (the Defendant relies upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000 in this regard).

7. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence in that the Defendant was the driver (not so here).

8. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and the Pre-action Protocol. It merely provides a date, location, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. Gladstones have also added ‘Legal representative’s costs’ of £50. I propose these have not been incurred by the claimant but artificially invented in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof to explain why they have failed to comply with the Protocol and why Gladstones appear to consider themselves and their clients to be immune from the rules of the court, which bind every other litigant.

10. The Claimant has failed to follow the Code of Practice (CoP) of their Trade Body, as regards clear signage and acting in a professional manner to ensure that action is not taken without any cause. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that such a CoP is effectively 'regulation' full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping a note of wasted time and costs so far in dealing with this matter, with a view to claiming any reasonable losses connected with defending this claim and attending any hearings.

12. Based on the above reasons, the Court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.



(Name) (Signature) (Date)

please kindly read through my defence and advice me asap, i have also got my AoS yesterday the 21/03/19. thanks

KeithP

DEFENCE: (planned to be filed before 26th March)

Why are you planning to file your Defence so soon?

You have a whole month before your Defence needs to be filed.

You may be surprised to know that many people have better things to do at a weekend than read Defences.

My suggestion would be to leave it until much nearer the due date before filing - bumping the thread as necessary for comment.

Eminowa

ok thats fine., i was only following your advice( keithP) advice not to leave it till die minute, the earlier i draft one the better, but like you said i wont send it until close to the due date. but is there anything i need to do before i send in my defence , like maybe SAR request or anything......? advices and suggestions welcome. thanks

KeithP

Yes, as advised in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread, you should be sending a SAR to the Claimant as soon as possible.

Le_Kirk

here is my defence. please i need comments and advice...before i submit it thanks

please kindly read through my defence and advice me asap, i have also got my AoS yesterday the 21/03/19. thanks

Somebody will no doubt read your defence but you have to give them more than SEVEN minutes which is the time between your two posts!

have also got my AoS yesterday

What does this mean please? Do you mean you submitted the AoS online?