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

Le_Kirk

7. The data provided from an SAR request from the claimant shows the defendant stopping for a total period of 8 minutes on land owned by the Claimant. The signage does not make clear that there is a restricted time for stopping and does not preclude to a loading/unloading activity.

Should be: -

7. The data provided from an SAR request from the claimant shows the defendant stopping for a total period of 8 minutes on land owned by the Claimant. The signage does not make clear that there is a restricted time for stopping and does not preclude [strike]to a[/strike] loading/unloading activity.

JohnDoe42

Ok cool thanks for those amendments Grandad and Le Kirk I'll get those fixed before sending in tomorrow.


Do you guys think thats correct/enough? Or does it need anything more?


Coupon-Mad - Regarding your comment about having experience winning with Peacehaven if theres a way to discuss with you privately if that's something you do then please let me know details.

JohnDoe42

Ok I think given time and work commitments tomorrow I'm going to have to go with what I've got here. Hope its enough.

JohnDoe42

I added in some extra things which I feel should be part of it. Thoughts?








IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

One Parking Solutions Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

Mr (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 xxxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was stopped at land managed by the Claimant at Peacehaven Retail Park on xx/xx/xxxx.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

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


7. The data provided from an SAR request from the claimant shows the defendant stopping for a total period of 8 minutes on land managed by the Claimant. The signage does not make clear that there is a restricted time for stopping and does not preclude loading/unloading activity.


8. The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. The fact that this area is marked as loading and motorists use this area as a legitimate parking bay, as shown in photographs, I would question that the Claimant has deliberately created this area to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices solely for financial gain. Also, tickets issued by CCTV trained on loading bays is unconscionable and predatory and allows no grace period or ‘observation’ given the loading bays do not prohibit stopping.

9. 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.

10. 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 £78.50, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. The Defendant has never received the original Notice To Keeper with regards to this claim, also by which the Claimant has never been able to provide evidence of posting or receipt by the Defendant of the Notice To Keeper.

12. This is the Claimants third attempt at putting forward this claim. The last two attempts by other Debt Collection Companies on behalf of the claimant have ceased after receiving the Defendants written statement that the original Notice To Keeper was never served. This third attempt by Gladstone’s amounts to harassment and they have ignored written correspondence requesting for the process to be started in the correct way.

13. The Particulars Of Claim contains information that is untrue where stated “The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days”. The driver never received the PCN within 28 days so there was never any agreement to do so. Gladstones are aware of this as they have multiple written declarations from me stating this. This is perjury.

14. 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

I'm sure they've added more than £78.50 to the £100. State the WHOLE sums added.

8. The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’.

OPS are not in the IPC. They are in the BPA so quote the BPA CoP on predatory tactics and professionalism, and the BPA CoP para 13 on Grace periods.

If you want me to attend court with you if you are local, let me know by private message when my inbox isn't full.

I'm happy to turn up for moral support or to lay rep for you, if I am free.

JohnDoe42

Hi Everyone


I now have a court date of September 13th.

Coupon-Mad if you'd have time to Lay-Rep for me that would be great, if not I've been speaking with ParkingMad who has also offered to help if you're unavailable.



I've drafted a witness statement but not sure how good it is.


I've not received anything from Gladstones at the moment, should I have?



I also understand there may be issues about the validity of the LBC which didn't include any annex documentation, only the actual LBC.

JohnDoe42

P.s. Coupon-Mad can you clear some messages so I can PM you?

JohnDoe42

Anyone about on this one?


I've drafted a Witness Statement and also have a copy of the LBC if thats worth anyone examining.