Gladstones Letter Before Claim

ts6789

Also worth noting that Gladstones sought mediation but I refused. They have until 7th January to pay the trial fee - is there a strong likelihood that they wouldn't go through with it and the claim will be struck out?

beamerguy

ts6789 wrote: »

Also worth noting that Gladstones sought mediation but I refused. They have until 7th January to pay the trial fee - is there a strong likelihood that they wouldn't go through with it and the claim will be struck out?

A lot of them are requesting mediation at present
Saves them a lot money when they will probably get spanked in court

A discontinue notice is no doubt on it's way, at the last minute

Coupon-mad

ts6789 wrote: »

Also worth noting that Gladstones sought mediation but I refused. They have until 7th January to pay the trial fee - is there a strong likelihood that they wouldn't go through with it and the claim will be struck out?

No, but they sometimes do.

ts6789

Thanks both - will keep an eye out and prep in the meantime.

Grateful if you someone could have a look over my defence and let me know which areas to stress in my witness statement and what supporting evidence would be useful

Coupon-mad

You need to read other threads ahead of you, and this one is a great place to start:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6017649/county-court-claim-private-pcn-from-uk-cpm&page=3

As are all the other UKCPM ones you find when searching 'Jack Chapman'.

ts6789

Hi,

See below a draft witness statement. Grateful for any comments particularly on the paragraphs in red. On the second highlighted paragraph where I talk about the housing association, I'd be grateful if I could have views on whether it's a) necessary to include and b) if so, whether my defence allows me to include it. I've also copied in a list below on the supporting evidence I'll include in the pack.

In the County Court at


Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

Witness statement of XXXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit XX, Exhibit XX and so on.

2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

3. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

4. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg – XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by several family and friends.

5. Unfortunately I do not have a copy of the notice to the keeper issued by CMP to help me determine whether the claimant provided the relevant and legally required information in the notice to keeper letter. I requested all correspondence from UKCMP via a subject access request (Exhibit A) and did not receive a copy of the notice to the keeper letter. They only shared a formal demand letter (See Exhibit .

6. According to the formal demand letter, the charges were for ‘not displaying a valid parking ticket’ on 14.06.2018 at 17:41 on xx Street, London UK.

7. As the claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The claimant has failed to comply with the IPC Code of Practice (See Exhibit C) as follows:

8. The formal demand letter says that Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to the vehicle because ‘it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at XX Street that we are authorised to manage by our client. This PCN was issued on the 14th June 2018 at 17:21 and has not been paid. The reason we issued the PCN to the vehicle is as follows: Not Displaying a Valid Permit. In accordance with the signage that is clearly and prominently displayed on site, those drivers who break the terms and conditions of parking are liable to pay a charge. ’ The claimant is put to strict proof that the car the terms were offered to the driver in a clear way.

9. The claimant failed to comply IPC Code of Practice Part B 2.2 which states ‘Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code’ (PART E Schedule 1 – Signage).

10. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence.

11. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was stationed in an area where there are no marked bays and that there is a sign to the left of where the car was parked.

12. The image however does not show that there is another sign opposite the UKCMP sign from a different parking company: Countrywide Parking. See Exhibit D. This sign was on the driver’s side and is therefore plausible that it was the first and only sign that was seen by the driver.

13. As a resident of the street, I was aware that Countrywide Parking were operating in the area as it was contracted out by my housing association (See Exhibit E). The permit I had on display was from the previous parking company contracted out by my housing association. The housing association was in the process of changing parking companies and had advised residents to continue displaying their old parking permits (See Exhibit E). The driver was therefore parking under the assumption that the permit they had was valid and that they had entered into a contract with Countrywide Parking not UKCMP.

14. The signage was also deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to read the tiny wording during the day due to the height of the sign. See exhibit F.

15. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.

16. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges". See Exhibit F.

17. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1. 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.

18. The claimant is yet to provide evidence of relevant planning permission from the local authority to put up signage in the car park.

19. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, (See Exhibit G) 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 £72.95, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

20. 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.

21. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported 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 a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

22. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

23. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

24. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

25. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

26. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

27. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

28. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
29. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow the full costs recovery order due to the claimant’s unreasonable claim as per CPR 27.14.2(g). My costs schedule will be submitted separately, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Supporting evidence:
1. Exhibit A – Subject Access request submitted to UKCMP
2. Exhibit B – Formal demand letter issued by UKCMP
3. Exhibit C – IPC code of practice
4. Exhibit D – Images of UKCMP and Countrywide Parking signs
5. Exhibit E – Letter from housing association advising residents of new parking company and to display old parking permits
6. Exhibit F – UKCMP sign
7. Exhibit G - The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4

Link to relevant documents here: hxxps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UX8a7y2OmKaEbWzLa9zwQ5tK5Sdpu9TM

ts6789

Also, this may be a stupid question but am I right in thinking that I need to share all documents with the court and Gladstones by 16th January? My court date is on 4th February.

Coupon-mad

You have called the claimant 'CMP' or UKCMP' wrongly throughout.

The claim includes an additional £72.95,

Nope - the falsely added sum is the £60.

What about your costs schedule?

What about Jack Chapman and the SRA complaint or are you still waiting for their WS?

Le_Kirk

You need to file (court) and serve (claimant) all documents but the date will depend upon what was written in the letter allocating the court date. Sometimes it is a date and sometimes it is a number of (usually 14) days before court date.

ts6789

Good sport on my reference to the claimant- will have that changed and will correct the falsely added sum to £60.

What about Jack Chapman and the SRA complaint or are you still waiting for their WS?

I haven't received their WS yet - should I have received it by now given my court date isn't till the 4th? They called me the other day asking if I wanted to settle - I refused.

You need to file (court) and serve (claimant) all documents but the date will depend upon what was written in the letter allocating the court date. Sometimes it is a date and sometimes it is a number of (usually 14) days before court date.

The letter says "no later than fourteen days before the hearing". Not clear whether it's working days or normal days.