Gladstone Solicitors Claim form for parking ticket

Mattmay247

Oh my. I see what you mean with para 2. Hopefully I’ve made it at least readable, without me having a hit on my inhaler. I’ve added the Jolley vs Carmel paragraph. Anything else I need ? I just want to say a big thank you for everyone that’s helped out on my problem with these scam artists.

XXXXX (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

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 did pay and display as soon as was reasonably possible given the circumstances on arrival. The car park was busy, almost full, and this is not the most easy of car parks to manoeuvre through. A few minutes were taken carefully driving around looking for a space, queuing to wait, then parking. Also locking the car, walking over to the signs and machine. Finding the change where the initial monies were refused to be accepted by the machine. Furthermore spent an additional few minutes trying to obtain coins that the machine wouldn’t reject in order to obtain a PDT in good faith. Which then printed out an agreed 'expiry time' that the Defendant understood was the authorised time to return to the vehicle and leave.


2.1. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] , 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. The Defendant could not have known that the payment machine was not taking coins correctly, and if the machine or additional signs had alerted him to this fact, the Defendant would have stopped to organise additional coins but was not given that opportunity or information.


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.


Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
5. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

5.1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were either sent by a third party which offers a 'no collection, no fee' service, or were a standard feature of a low cost business model. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum is, by definition, already hugely inflated for profit, not loss, and the Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead their case in damages, as none exist.

5.2. The Claimant cannot reasonably recover £243.18 an additional (partially invented) £143.18 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The POFA states that the maximum sum that may be recovered is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100 (this sum also being the ceiling allowed by the BPA) and thus £100 is the maximum sum potentially recoverable under contract, regardless of whether the illegible small print on the signs attempted to bolt on a further sum (this is not known, but is a common trick by this industry).

5.3. Even the purported 'legal costs' are made up out of thin air. No individual Director or solicitor has signed the Particulars of Claim - in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity - and this template roboclaim has clearly had no input from any supervising Solicitor, whether in house or externally. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/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 costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated clerical staff.

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 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Statement of Truth:

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

Name
Signature
Date

Mattmay247

Anything else I could add to the defence or is that okay? Thanks

The_Deep

£243 far more than the Law allows for this sort of claim. The down market solicitors know this, but, because they are solicitors, know that a lot of people will pay up.

It is in fact double charging and non claimable debt collectors' add ons. Imo, this is fraud, or, at the very least, improper conduct.

Were this to get to court and they won, the judge would be unlikely to award the claimant more than £175 - £200.

I urge you to report this grubby law firm to their regulatory body, the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/code/content.page

as I am sure they do not condone this conduct.

Also complain to your MP, they are hot on the heals of these scammers and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

Mattmay247 wrote: »

Anything else I could add to the defence or is that okay? Thanks

Looks good to get emailed to the CCBCAQ email. Crack on!

Mattmay247

Just got the DQ email...

Is going on paper better as they suggest ?

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

KeithP

You will by now have read Bargepole's 'what happens when' thread lined from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Amongst all the good advice there, is:

Note: Gladstones are currently including a 'request for special directions' asking the Court to hear the case on the papers only, without an oral hearing. You should oppose this, and include the following text in D1: “The Defendant opposes the Claimant’s request for special directions, and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the defendant’s home court, pursuant to CPR 26.2A(3)”.

Mattmay247

Thanks, Keith. I’ll oppose it to be done on paper.

KeithP

Please read the rest of Bargepole's 'what happens when' thread for full details on how to answer every question on your DQ.

Coupon-mad

OK and that DQ is not your DQ, which will arrive this month from the CCBC.

Mattmay247

Hiya. Just a quick update. Just got my paper work from the county court.

It’s saying my claim will be heard at the royal Court of Justice, Strand,London.
I’m a little worried as I put down Luton county court & after a bit of research it’s saying usually quite serious cases be heard there?
Any info on this would be great. Thanks