Gladstones [Link Parking] - Visitor Parking County Court Claim

VSOP

Hello all,

First things first, just want to thank anybody who responds in advance. This is a great forum and it's a great effort to unite against parking cowboys.

So I have been on the receiving end of a claim from the County Court Business Centre directed by Gladstones Solicitors representing Link Parking.

I have done some research already regarding writing up a defence and also reviewed the newbie thread. However, a few things I just wanted to double check:

Background:
Using a visitors permit, I parked my car in an un-marked space within a cul-de-sac. My parking was not obstructing anything or anybody. I am told there used to be visitors bays marked clearly in the area, but the markings have now all faded. I then received a PCN for 'not parking in a designated area' - which subsequently lead to a county court claim after lack of correspondence.
ibb.co/LxNDmQk

To add here is the parking signage (1 sign being clearly ineligible)
ibb.co/JKZTzKB
ibb.co/ZxDVqdD

Particulars of Claim
ibb.co/cL1Tx22

1. Late acknowledgement of claim:
The claim issue date was 8th May 2019, and due to a number of factors I only acknowledged online on 28th May. Is that too late? I know I had 14 days, but wasn't sure if these are working days and if bank holidays included etc... The online portal allowed me to acknowledge.

2. Points requiring clarification:
A. Do I still need to send a SAR?

B. Apart from the standard defence points - I have quite a few defence letter examples. What angle do you suggest I take for the fact that I had a visitor permit and the signage did not appropriately specify to park in a visitors designated area, nor are the visitors parking bays clearly designated?

Thank you guys so much!

KeithP

VSOP wrote: »

1. Late acknowledgement of claim:
The claim issue date was 8th May 2019, and due to a number of factors I only acknowledged online on 28th May. Is that too late? I know I had 14 days, but wasn't sure if these are working days and if bank holidays included etc... The online portal allowed me to acknowledge.

You were not late filing your AoS. Because of the Bank Holiday, you had until 4pm on Tuesday 28th May to file it.


With a Claim Issue Date of 8th May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a little over a week away. Loads of time to produce a good 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.

VSOP wrote: »

2. Points requiring clarification:
A. Do I still need to send a SAR?

Yes, sent a Subject Access Request to the parking company straight away. You may not get a response before your Defence is due, but it will probably be more useful at Witness Statement time anyway.

VSOP

@KeithP

Really appreciate your quick input - thank you.

Coupon-mad

Do I still need to send a SAR?

Yes if you haven't seen all photos or kept the PCN, NtK, etc.

Your images:

- photos of an illegible (not ineligible) sign behind foliage and not near the parking area:

https://ibb.co/LxNDmQk

https://ibb.co/ZxDVqdD


- sign with £100 in the very smallest font, so hardly 'agreed' as a contract:

https://ibb.co/JKZTzKB


- POC:

https://ibb.co/cL1Tx22

VSOP

Thanks @Coupon-Mad

Can anybody please assist on the below?

VSOP wrote: »

Hello all,

B. Apart from the standard defence points - I have quite a few defence letter examples. What angle do you suggest I take for the fact that I had a visitor permit and the signage did not appropriately specify to park in a visitors designated area, nor are the visitors parking bays clearly designated?

Thank you guys so much!

beamerguy

Your clue is here

https://ibb.co/cL1Tx22

They claim terms say that there is a £60 contractual charge ?

Terms that are hidden by bushes and tiny tiny fonts

As such no contract can be formed even for the £100

Coupon-mad

What angle do you suggest I take for the fact that I had a visitor permit and the signage did not appropriately specify to park in a visitors designated area, nor are the visitors parking bays clearly designated?

Pretty sure one of bargepole's two concise defence examples I've linked in the NEWBIES thread already covers unclear signs & lines, and a Claimant not making it clear where cars can be parked or not.

All you need is bargepole's version, with a short point near the start about your own facts/car park/signs.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. 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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but 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.

VSOP

Thanks all for your input thus far.

I have put together the below draft to submit tomorrow. Any feedback please let me know:

DEFENCE LETTER DRAFT

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 held a valid parking permit on the material date. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘visitor’ parking spaces. The terms on the Claimant’s signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are located in such position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do easily.

3. Furthermore, it is denied the claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person read them. They merely state that vehicles must be correctly parked within their allocated bay with no indication which bays are allocated to whom. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

4. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a keeper with a ‘visitor’ parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no legally binding contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

5. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. 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.

7. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

8. 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.

Statement of Truth:

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

Name
Signature
Date

VSOP

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Pretty sure one of bargepole's two concise defence examples I've linked in the NEWBIES thread already covers unclear signs & lines, and a Claimant not making it clear where cars can be parked or not.

All you need is bargepole's version, with a short point near the start about your own facts/car park/signs.

You are a legend this really helped - thanks.

VSOP

DEFENCE LETTER DRAFT UPDATED

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 held a valid parking permit on the material date. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘visitor’ parking spaces. The terms on the Claimant’s signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are located in such position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do easily.

3. Furthermore, it is denied the claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person read them. They merely state that vehicles must be correctly parked within their allocated bay with no indication which bays are allocated to whom. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

4. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a keeper with a ‘visitor’ parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no legally binding contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.

5. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot
i. Override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and
ii. That parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided within for within a lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgements on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] Civ 2011.

6. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. 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.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

9. 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.

Statement of Truth:

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

Name
Signature
Date