Set aside partially won- need some advice

Redx

yes , mention these briefly in the defence , so you can add the WS + EXHIBITS at the WS stage later in the process

these are not needed for the initial defence, but it will help to mention them so they can be expanded later , and they probably failed POFA anyway , meaning a keeper isnt liable

as I said , start with the BARGEPOLE concise defence , then adapt it as a working draft, then post it below for critique

until you post it , you wont get the critique you need


ps:- you do realise that there are tens of thousands of people who could have been driving the vehicle ?

for example , ME , its not just those who are or were insured at the time , it could have been a mechanic, the police , the AA , the RAC , ME , my bro , coupon-mad , loads of people can legally drive your vehicles

smity85

No I appreciate that many people could have driven it, but I'm just looking at it through those with a greater probability.

I will post the draft up tomorrow evening after work. I have BARGEPOLE's to get me started and will build on that.

Thanks for the help so far

[Deleted User]

You'll defend as keeper of the car. The defence won't change whomsoever was driving as no-one can say when the ticket was applied to the windscreen and you will say the car was in any event permitted.

There are better points to focus on, like getting a letter from the old managing agent to show you were in their list of residents who had a permit and/or proving that the tenancy agreement entitled you to park without the encumbrance if applying for and displaying a permit.

Coupon-mad

The possibility of a UKCPM self-ticketer issuing a ghost ticket is certainly there:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5985312/bbc-wales-show-more-parking-scams

Watch the programme.

UKCPM have stopped ALL their self ticketing at every site (reportedly) until that are allowed to do so again by the IPC (which won't be long). But the point is to show that self ticketing is incentivised, and abused, and UKCPM know it.

Please don't reply saying you don't know if it was self ticketing, or ghost ticketing. That's for you to suggest and their burden as Claimant, to prove otherwise.

smity85

Interesting watch Coupon-mad.

Right I have written my defence heeding the advice from you good people so far. Please have a read, let me know what you think, and by all means feel free to critique it as required.

Thanks

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN: xxxxxxxxxx

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxx (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 a marked bay at XXXX chase, and had a valid permit to be parked where it was.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and therefore the driver of the vehicle above at the time the alleged contravention took place. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply making the assumption that this is the case. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.

4. Due to the sparseness of details surrounding the claim and the only documentation received being that in which was passed to me by the court at the set aside hearing and following on from a Subject Access Request to the claimant you can clearly see that the Defendants vehicle has a valid residents parking permit on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice was allegedly issued. This therefore debunks any reasoning for a Parking Charge Notice ever being issued.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them that the vehicle registered keeper would be liable for any breach of any term or condition and that the it is the Driver who is solely responsible.

6. Due to the time lapse in finding out about this alleged contravention due to no Parking Charge Notice ever being received by the Defendant it is now impossible to identify to whom may have been the Driver of the Defendants vehicle at the time the alleged defence took place. However as recently exposed by the BBC on the 1st of April 2019, it appears to have been common practice for persons representing the Claimant and issuing Parking Charge Notices to falsely issue tickets to Driver’s not in breach of any term or condition.

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, in poorly lit areas, 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.

8. 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.



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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. 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

How about this, if it was a residents' car park?

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay at XXXX chase, and had a valid permit to be parked where it was. No windscreen PCN was ever found attached to the car, to the sure knowledge of any possible driver (the Defendant having questioned family members more recently) and thus it has been impossible to conclude why any alleged PCN was ever issued by this notorious ex-clamper firm - who were causing a private nuisance to residents on this estate - or who parked the car on that unremarkable occasion. Whilst the evidence photos appear to show some sort of packet on the windscreen (easily mocked up by a rogue operator) this same evidence also shows the permit, so there appears to be no contravention.

smity85

That reads much better than mine.

I will edit that in. Any other suggestions or do you think that will suffice?

smity85

all sent off. we shall see what happens

smity85

So today I received this from Gladstones alongside a draft N180.

"We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward."

Now having received this and not hearing anything from the court since submitting my defence I decided to give them a call.
The lady on the phone confirmed my set aside which she processed on the phone! She also stated that I should have received my direction from the judge but as my file couldn't be located it may be in the process of being typed up, and to just follow the direction of the judge on the day (which I am).

My question is whether this is common? What's the advice for responding to Gladstone?

Thanks
Dan

Coupon-mad

I think you missed this link when you referred back to the NEWBIES thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016

Just like this person this morning...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75691703#Comment_75691703

...and every day, every week...Groundhog Day here...people ask the same thing even though it's in the NEWBIES thread and has been for months/years.

You can even find that tedious template just by Googling:

Gladstones relatively straightforward letter

But what we do advise is, please always refer back to the NEWBIES thread first.