Civil enforcement County Court Letter

ASHLEYB66

Thank You for your patience.

Yes I have Acknowledged the claim with Money Claim Online and have printed off the Acknowledgment. . What is the next step I need to take?

MothballsWallet

The next step is your defence, which I see you've posted a draft of in post #5, the first thing I noticed was this:

"I XXXX Defendant"

That doesn't read well to me, so I'm suggesting that you change that to "I am XXXX, the Defendant" as I feel that it reads more clearly.

I don't feel confident in commenting on the rest other than it looks reasonable to me, but I did notice that you've got )'s in the numbering under item 13 but .'s elsewhere - I'd recommend using the same format throughout for consistency.

I'd also recommend waiting for someone more experienced than I to add their thoughts for you.

Le_Kirk

ASHLEYB66 wrote: »

What is the next step I need to take?

Read some/all of the concisely written defences HERE and adapt one to suit your circumstances being sure to cover ALL the allegations made by the claimant in their POC if they did, in fact, give you all of their evidence in the LBC.

Once you've clicked on the link, scroll down to: -

Here are some cases won or in progress:

Here is a defence I suggested for a case where

ASHLEYB66

Hello and thank you again for your assistance.

So I have read the threads to see which is the best to use, and I found the best one to use is the following;

** Here is a defence from 2017, a Gladstones farce about the failure of a Pay by Phone app**

How does this sound?

I XXXX Defendant in this matter and I assert that the Claimant has no cause for action for the following reasons:

1.It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2 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 XXXXX when it was parked at Cowan Terrace, Sunderland

3. The PCN stated the contravention as “Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage”, although this was tried many times via the Payviaphone app and by calling the telephone number.

4. It is denied that
a. A contract was formed, and it is further denied that any contravention of Payment not made in accordance with terms displayed on signage”, occurred or can have occurred when using the Pay by Phone option, the failure of which was not communicated to me nor was it within my control. Even if a contract was potentially formed it was frustrated by the unexpected and uncommunicated failure of the Claimant's app, and it is trite law that no party can be held liable for breach to another under such circumstances of frustration of contract.

b. There was any agreement to pay a parking charge.

c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site which communicated any additional punitive parking charge (effectively a private 'fine') in large lettering, in a clear and concise way, on a par with the tariff signs where the fees were advertised in the largest font. By contrast, the 'parking charge' is positively buried in small print, contrary to Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' and contrary to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

d. That in addition to the parking charge there was any agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums, which are in any case unsupported by the Beavis case and unsupported for cases on the small claims track.

e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

f. The Pay by Phone app, being indisputably an offer of a 'distance contract', complied with the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which says:

''Confirmation of distance contracts: 16.—(1) In the case of a distance contract the trader must give the consumer confirmation of the contract on a durable medium.
(2) The confirmation must include all the information referred to in Schedule 2 unless the trader has already provided that information to the consumer on a durable medium prior to the conclusion of the distance contract.
(3) If the contract is for the supply of digital content not on a tangible medium and the consumer has given the consent and acknowledgment referred to in regulation 37(1)(a) and (b), the confirmation must include confirmation of the consent and acknowledgement.''

5. It is further denied that the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.

Rebuttal of Claim
6a. The Defendant made all reasonable efforts to make payment for parking by using an approved payment channel.
a. Payment for parking was tried using a cashless system provided by PayByPhone, although the phone app was unsuccessful due to an app error aswell as calls to StarPark .
b. This is a distance contract which requires certain information to be supplied in advance. .
c. The Defendant followed the PayByPhone instructions exactly as shown on the signage at the payment machine.
d.In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.

7. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

8. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.
a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.

9. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist.
a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent 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. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
b. The size of font of the prices advised for parking is much larger than the font of the contract and the offer is not sufficiently brought to the attention of the motorist, nor are the onerous terms (the £100 parking charge) sufficiently prominent to satisfy Lord Dennings "red hand rule”.
c. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.
e. The PayByPhone signage specifically states that there is “No need to display a ticket in your car” therefore there was no breach of any ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as required under Schedule 4 of POFA.
f. If the Claimant wanted to impose a condition to continuously display permits, then they should have drafted clear instruction to that effect, requiring specific terms of how to 'continuously display' when a paper ticket has not been issued or there is no contravention.
g. Where contract terms have different meanings, as in this instance when a paper ticket was not issued due to the chosen method of payment, then Section 69 of the CRA 2015 provides a statutory form of the contra proferentem rule, such that the consumer must be given the benefit of the doubt.
The term is fundamental to the contract, and the Defendant invites the Court to find that it is not transparent and therefore unfair. If a fundamental term to the contract is deemed to be unfair, then the contract will cease to bind the parties. The Defence invites the Court to take these issues into account in determining the fairness of the term.

10. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £60 to £267.25. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
b. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £60 to £267.25. This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim:
11. Star Park Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
c. The Claimant is put to 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
d. The Particulars of Claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

12. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence:
‘The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXX incurred the parking charge(s) on 06/07/2018 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Star Park Cowan Terrace. .
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £267.25 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £6.81 pursuantto s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day’

13. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided.
a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

14. The Defendant invites the court to strike out or dismiss the claim under Rule 3.4(2)(a) of PRACTICE DIRECTION 3A as having not set out a concise statement of the nature of the claim or disclosed reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim (Part 16.4(1)(a) and PRACTICE DIRECTION 16 paragraphs 3.1-3.8). In C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones Solicitors had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim, and similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’

15. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

16. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

17. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

18. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

19. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

20. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

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

Name
Signature
Date

Umkomaas

15. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

16. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

17. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

18. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

That’s a rant that will have no bearing on whether the parking charge has been issued correctly and/or whether it is enforceable.

It is old and much has changed especially the current name of the IPC and the individuals you have named have different relationships with the IPC now. Using that will expose your defence as a copy and paste template that has had little or no research undertaken by you as to its validity and currency of its contents.

The defence is long and doesn’t look anything like the exemplar defence produced by bargepole (who is legally qualified) in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2.

Take bargepole’s example and adapt it to your circumstances.

ASHLEYB66

Thank you for advising me this. Is this correct?


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 tried to pay via the Phone and Pay App, in which the Defendant uses on a daily basis. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of unmarked ‘private land’ parking spaces. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where to park or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

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

4. 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.

5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £267.25 costs to pursue an alleged £60 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 £60

6. 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
Date

Coupon-mad

This doesn't make any sense to me, I can't tell what happened?:

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant tried to pay via the Phone and Pay App, in which the Defendant uses on a daily basis. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of unmarked ‘private land’ parking spaces. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where to park or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

...and astonishingly, you appear to have removed all mention of dodgy unclear signs that are an absolute MUST when defending a CEL case.

And this should read £100, as I doubt the no-discounted charge was only £60:

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 £60

ASHLEYB66

Basically I tried to pay via the phone app that day and the system was down. I tried numerous times and then as the day went by I was busy at work and forgot to keep trying therefore received a ticket.

The other thing about this car park is that there is no clear markings in the car park? It's just a gravelled area. So I was trying to put in about that.

Sorry I keep on getting this wrong every time, as a new member I've tried to look at every scenario on the newbies post but seem to struggle with the jargon words I have to include.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad is pointing to the fact that your point 2. in your defence is incomprehensible in its current form. You are expecting a judge, who knows nothing of the circumstances of the car park and you visit there, to understand what you have written. It needs to be clearer and be based on technical or legal points. You can tell your actual story of "what happened on the day" when it comes to submitting your witness statement.

ASHLEYB66

Is this any better? I have taken notes from both replies to change the costing to £100 and I have told my story of the full situation.


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 is that the Defendant tried to pay via the Phone and Pay App on the 06/07/2018, in which the Defendant uses on a daily basis, although on this day in matter, the phone app was unavailable and failing to refresh. Throughout the day the defendant tried although with no luck.

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

4. 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.

5. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £267.25 costs to pursue an alleged £100 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

6. 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
Date