We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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 number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Euro Parking Services Ltd-Gladstone Solicitors County Court Claim. HELP NEEDED PLEASE!
Twins123
Posts: 21 Forumite
Hi all,
I'd appreciate any help with my case.
I received a court claim from Gladstone Solicitors,they are acting on behalf of Europarking Services Ltd. I am the keeper of the vehicle,but wasn't the driver. The driver had a business meeting. He went to the building where he was supposed to get a day pass at reception. No one was there so he couldn't acquire one. When he finished the meeting he found a pcn on the windscreen. He went back and explained he had a meeting at one of the offices and because nobody was at reception he couldn't get a day pass. He was told not to worry about it,just to leave the PCN there and all will be sorted.
I have not received any letter from either Euro Parking Services or Gladstone solicitors until the Court Claim. I emailed Euro Parking Services Ltd for a SAR. They have provided me with some pictures and a NTK that was send on day 31(keepers details was requested on the same day) . Seems like they also sent a letter before court. Again I have not seen any of these letter before.
I read a lot of the cases in the past couple of weeks and I have read the NEWBIES posts. I think my best option is to focus on the lack of signage and on the fact that there is no instruction how to obtain a permit "day pass".
Particulars of Claim:
• The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX (the "Vehicle") parked in breach of the terms terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the "Contract") at XXXXXXX, on xx xx xxxx thus incurring the parking charge (the PCN") the driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. The claimant claims the unpaid 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 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statuary interest of £22.15 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.
English is not my first language so I would really appreciate any help checking and correcting my defence.
Thank you!
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 XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on 24/05/2017 at XXXXXXX.
1/The lack of signage illumination is in breach of the Code of Practice for the International Parking Community (IPC), of which Euro Parking Services Ltd is a member.!
a. IPC’s Code of Practice Part B paragraph 2.2 states “Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code”. Schedule 1 Part E states “If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge”.!
b. Furthermore, IPC’s Code of Practice states “The colours used on signage should be such that the contrast between the background and the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible”. The photographic evidence provided shows that this is not the case on the signage provided.
c. No signage at the entrance of the car park.
3/ 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. They merely state that vehicles must hold a permit. There is no instructions on how to obtain one.
Even if the Claimant is relying on a purported contract flowing from signs at the location, such terms were not prominent and were never seen by the Defendant, failing Lord Denning's 'red hand rule'. Any signs were not 'adequate notice' of the claimed parking charge and nor did the Defendant know about, or agree to by conduct or otherwise, any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' (ref: the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4).!
4/This claimant has not complied with pre-protocol:
(a) !This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention.
(b) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
5/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Euro Parking Services Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. 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.
6/ The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.
7/ 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.
8/ 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.
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.
I'd appreciate any help with my case.
I received a court claim from Gladstone Solicitors,they are acting on behalf of Europarking Services Ltd. I am the keeper of the vehicle,but wasn't the driver. The driver had a business meeting. He went to the building where he was supposed to get a day pass at reception. No one was there so he couldn't acquire one. When he finished the meeting he found a pcn on the windscreen. He went back and explained he had a meeting at one of the offices and because nobody was at reception he couldn't get a day pass. He was told not to worry about it,just to leave the PCN there and all will be sorted.
I have not received any letter from either Euro Parking Services or Gladstone solicitors until the Court Claim. I emailed Euro Parking Services Ltd for a SAR. They have provided me with some pictures and a NTK that was send on day 31(keepers details was requested on the same day) . Seems like they also sent a letter before court. Again I have not seen any of these letter before.
I read a lot of the cases in the past couple of weeks and I have read the NEWBIES posts. I think my best option is to focus on the lack of signage and on the fact that there is no instruction how to obtain a permit "day pass".
Particulars of Claim:
• The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX (the "Vehicle") parked in breach of the terms terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the "Contract") at XXXXXXX, on xx xx xxxx thus incurring the parking charge (the PCN") the driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so. The claimant claims the unpaid 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 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statuary interest of £22.15 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.
English is not my first language so I would really appreciate any help checking and correcting my defence.
Thank you!
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 XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on 24/05/2017 at XXXXXXX.
1/The lack of signage illumination is in breach of the Code of Practice for the International Parking Community (IPC), of which Euro Parking Services Ltd is a member.!
a. IPC’s Code of Practice Part B paragraph 2.2 states “Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code”. Schedule 1 Part E states “If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge”.!
b. Furthermore, IPC’s Code of Practice states “The colours used on signage should be such that the contrast between the background and the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible”. The photographic evidence provided shows that this is not the case on the signage provided.
c. No signage at the entrance of the car park.
3/ 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. They merely state that vehicles must hold a permit. There is no instructions on how to obtain one.
Even if the Claimant is relying on a purported contract flowing from signs at the location, such terms were not prominent and were never seen by the Defendant, failing Lord Denning's 'red hand rule'. Any signs were not 'adequate notice' of the claimed parking charge and nor did the Defendant know about, or agree to by conduct or otherwise, any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' (ref: the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4).!
4/This claimant has not complied with pre-protocol:
(a) !This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with no contravention.
(b) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.
5/ No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Euro Parking Services Ltd do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. 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.
6/ The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.
7/ 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.
8/ 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.
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.
0
Comments
-
Hi and welcome.
What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?
Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?0 -
Hi,
Thank you!
The Issue date is 15/03/2019.
Acknowledgment Of Service is 27/03/2919.
Yes it's from County Court Business Centre,Northampton.0 -
Don't know if it's any help but I have uploaded some pictures.
/ibb.co/drmvMxX[/url]/ibb.co/n7hQ4jW[/url]/ibb.co/dLk2s21[/url]/ibb.co/4VGSzZZ[/url]/ibb.co/CMVCZfB[/url]/ibb.co/xGJwcS6[/url]/ibb.co/1Q9CrNm[/url]/ibb.co/Fn3pVyh[/url]/ibb.co/RQv2bF4[/url] 0 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 15th March, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th April 2019 to file your Defence.The Issue date is 15/03/2019.
Acknowledgment Of Service is 27/03/2919.
Yes it's from County Court Business Centre,Northampton.
That's about two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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 "defence received". 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.
-
You've made a very good effort there. Can't believe English is not your first language!
Very good, this bodes well for the later stages and hearing.Don't know if it's any help but I have uploaded some pictures.
https://ibb.co/drmvMxX
https://ibb.co/RQv2bF4
https://ibb.co/n7hQ4jW
https://ibb.co/dLk2s21
https://ibb.co/4VGSzZZ
https://ibb.co/CMVCZfB
https://ibb.co/xGJwcS6
https://ibb.co/1Q9CrNm
https://ibb.co/Fn3pVyh
Yep the signs are remotely placed high on a wall, easily obscured by other vans, and there is no obvious entrance sign telling you about any terms, either.
Yes and I would add a point saying:I think my best option is to focus on the lack of signage and on the fact that there is no instruction how to obtain a permit "day pass".Even if the signs are considered capable of being seen, the contract terms were either:
(a) satisfied, because a person attending for a pre-organised business meeting reaches a reasonable person's ordinary definition of ''pre-authorised'' (which on the signs is written as a separate bullet-point, where no permit is needed). Based on the doctrine of contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"), where signs or terms are considered to be ambiguous, the interpretation which most favours the consumer shall prevail (Consumer Rights Act 2015).
Or,
(b) in the alternative, the term requiring a permit was 'void for impossibility' on that day, and no doubt also on any other days when there was no-one on reception. If there is no mechanism for displaying a permit, then the contract term the Claimant relies upon was void and unfair and the Consumer Rights Act, again, provides that "A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer"PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi,
Thank you! To be honest I can't take any credit, all I did is read the posts and adjust the information to my case.
This is great,thank you so much!
“
Even if the signs are considered capable of being seen, the contract terms were either:
(a) satisfied, because a person attending for a pre-organised business meeting reaches a reasonable person's ordinary definition of ''pre-authorised'' (which on the signs is written as a separate bullet-point, where no permit is needed). Based on the doctrine of contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"), where signs or terms are considered to be ambiguous, the interpretation which most favours the consumer shall prevail (Consumer Rights Act 2015).
Or,
(b) in the alternative, the term requiring a permit was 'void for impossibility' on that day, and no doubt also on any other days when there was no-one on reception. If there is no mechanism for displaying a permit, then the contract term the Claimant relies upon was void and unfair and the Consumer Rights Act, again, provides that "A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer"0 -
Hi,
I have a Court hearing very soon (16/01/2019) and I am really worried. I read the NEWBIES post again but would appreciate any further advice. Is there anything I should send to the Court and the Claimant other than
- a copy of the!Beavis!case
- photos
-a copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA
- a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report
Any advice is appreciated!0 -
You have (presumably) filed a defence and, with a court date of 16/01/20, you should have or will have to by 02/01/20, filed and served witness statement (WS) and evidence. You file and serve any evidence that you want to rely on in court (i.e. that to which you referred in your WS.) Usual advice is to use extracts of evidence that supports your case. Judges should have access to statute and the Beavis case.0
-
Gladstones at this stage would be wise to discontinue
There is no such thing as a contractual charge, it's a made up scam and against POFA2012, the supreme court ruling and The Consumer Rights Act 2015. Plus the courts own ruling about double recovery
These dodgy legals also think they can rely upon the code of practice
READ HOW THE BPA AND IPC entice their members to break the
law
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/60832290 -
Thank you for your reply.
Just want to make sure I do everything correct and when I read the NEWBIES post I remember it was said to send a copy of the Beavis case,a copy of Schedule 4 of the POFA,a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report along with the photos and the witness statement.
Another question. Do I understand correctly I don't have to send my skeleton argument ,can I just take it with me to the hearing?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards