N1 Received Issue Date 07/05/19 - One P4rking S0lutions/Gl4dstones

JohnDoe42

Hi everyone

First I heard about this Court Claim was from ZZPS back in 2017? I had no original parking notice, it went straight to DCA. I complained, asked for evidence, which took a long time coming but I eventually did get it - parking in a marked loading bay. I said that if they resent the original PCN I'd pay the reduced amount (I thought fine lets just get it done) however refused to reissue, stating that the process had already moved on and that I had to deal with DCA. It went quiet again for a bit, then it seems debt was passed on to Gl4dstones. They asked me for info, I copied them in on the old email which I've stated back to PE that if they start again I'll pay, but it was ignored and now I've got the claim letter.


The catch is that Gl4dstones have written on the Court Claim I was given 28 days notice, but thats not true and they've been given written statement from me that it was never received, so thats a lie. There is no recorded evidence of me receiving a PCN (I asked for it) so how can they take me to Court without evidence of original serving??



My question is do I tick the box for accept reduced liability stating I will pay the £50 or do I counterclaim?



I feel like this is harrassment from Claimant when I've offered to settle before this stage.


Thanks

Coupon-mad

You haven't got a CCJ so please do an advanced edit of your thread title, or people will constantly be confused by your thread. I did tell you this in a reply just now.

My question is do I tick the box for accept reduced liability stating I will pay the £50 or do I counterclaim?

Neither.

I already answered that to you ten minutes ago, which is not enough time for you to have possibly read a single sentence from the NEWBIES thread post #2 that I signposted you to read, first, before posting.

Please read & use that resource so you forget about silly stuff like admitting the claim.

JohnDoe42

I did actually read quite a lot but wasn't sure it applied to me due to my circumstances.


Ok will look again.

Coupon-mad

None of your case is unique and a SAR (again, see NEWBIES thread post #2!) will soon show you the letters & photos they are relying on.

I also asked you only to post when you were showing us a draft defence, and to tell us the issue date of the N1 so we can give bespoke advice.

Le_Kirk

my situation is a bit unique

No such thing, nothing can be a bit unique, it's either unique or it's not! And nobody ever has a unique situation regarding PCNs, they all been seen before.

JohnDoe42

[FONT=&quot]Ok so here is what I've got on the N1...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot].........parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at xxxxx on xxxxx thius incurring the parking charge (PCN). The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of the 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 the outstanding liability.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]And this is my defence letter which I’m copied from your other posts.[/FONT]

1. I am the Defendant, ???? , DOB xx/xx/xxxx, and reside at ?????? and it is not admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. I have as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary matters:
3. The original PCN was never served to the defendant at the registered address of the keeper. Therefore no due process was started and the defendant has never been given a fair chance to defend the claim

4. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).


5. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charge” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.

6. The claimant clams that the Defendant agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days but this information is untrue. The Defendant asked the Claimant to issue the original PCN and start due process in order to settle the claim, but the original PCN was never served.


7. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

In further support of there being a want of cause of action:


8. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where I had pulled over, not parked. I was completely unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.


9. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. The road was not marked as a no-stopping zone nor transparently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their CoP requires.


10. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.


11. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.


12. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence. Further, there is no ‘legitimate interest’ served by immediate ticketing of a car on arrival, with no attempt to mitigate loss or draw terms to the attention of drivers, or allow any period of grace to obtain any permit or even read the signs.


13. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.


14. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.


15. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.


16. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.


17. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).


18. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.


19. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.


20. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

Yours sincerely


Issue that could arise after SAR data comes back…
- Photographs of the car in a loading bay
Points I have in my favour
- Multiple emails with On3 P4rking Solutions stating the original PCN was never served and asking for the process to be started so I can defend accordingly

twhitehousescat

ParkingEye/Gladstones ???

Redx

twhitehousescat wrote: »

ParkingEye/Gladstones ???

seems strange to me too

Parking Eye do their own court claims , AFAIK they do not use Gladrags at all

and they use EQUITA , not ZZPS


so I didnt believe it when I read the initial post , and a court claim is NOT a CCJ

KeithP

JohnDoe69 wrote: »

N1 Received Issue Date 07/05/19...

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, you have until Tuesday 28th May to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. 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.

JohnDoe42

Agreed, my dyslexia kicking in there. I have amended Claimant name in the title header and also amended where I have incorrectly stated I have a CCJ and replaced with the correct term Court Claim.

JohnDoe42

AoS has been done.