Gladstones Defence required Urgent

monkeynuts45

How does the scammer know that you parked across two bays, was the car park patrolled by a Parking Weasel? If so, why did nor he/she ask you to park elsewhere? Claimants are expected wherever possible to mitigate their losses and this sort of behaviour is frowned upon by judges.

Yep apparently they mooch around for just this type of occasion

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.

Will do already spoken to my councillor before they issued the N1. They are aware so more noise will be coming the councillors and the MP's way.

Coupon-mad

I wish people would stop making something of this:

2. The particulars of the claim state that “the driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so”. No agreement was entered into.

The line that the driver 'agreed to the charge' is normal.

It doesn't mean the driver said yes or signed anything, it's based on case law (the ParkingEye v Beavis case, that you need to be familiar with and distinguish your case from!). A contract can be formed by conduct (parking) alone, if the signs were clear and the charge has a legitimate interest.

Those two things are what you attack.

parked on the material date across 2 bays due to the lack of parent and child spaces.

Oh dear, parents do not need a special/wide bay but we've done that argument to death before on here! I am a Mum of 4 (now young adult students) born 7 years apart and have always driven since I was 19 or so, BTW, so I know what you are getting at!

But parents have no right whatsoever to wider bays. The really awful thing is when they park in disabled bays as if the meaning is the same! Eeek! Using two bays is selfish parking, sorry, and the Judge might agree with me.

P.S. Have you got your money back yet, or a threat like in the Trustpilot replies?

monkeynuts45

It doesn't mean the driver said yes or signed anything, it's based on case law (the ParkingEye v Beavis case, that you need to be familiar with and distinguish your case from!). A contract can be formed by conduct (parking) alone, if the signs were clear and the charge has a legitimate interest.

noted and dropped

But parents have no right whatsoever to wider bays. The really awful thing is when they park in disabled bays as if the meaning is the same! Eeek! Using two bays is selfish parking, sorry, and the Judge might agree with me.

No i would normally completely agree, on this occasion the bays were already breached by other vehicles, normally i would park with no other cars around to allow me to get them out. On this occasion that wasn't an option, but trust me these are not your standard size bays. They are tiny, is this a poss avenue?

P.S. Have you got your money back yet, or a threat like in the Trustpilot replies?

not tried yet, think i need to concentrate on this one first

Coupon-mad

trust me these are not your standard size bays. They are tiny, is this a poss avenue?

Yes, although there is no minimum bay size on private land, there is as regards Council signs & lines and you could mention bay dimensions and take some photos to use with this article later on, when it comes to WS & evidence stage (no evidence goes with a defence):

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library%202016/Bay_Sizes_-_Jul_2016.pdf

''When assessing the area needed for staff and customer parking, it should be noted that the current UK norm for parking spaces is 2.4 metres wide by 4.8 metres long. These dimensions are neither minimum nor written in tablets of stone, and may be revised to suit your particular needs, but remember that good access and wider bays aids efficient use of the parking area.''

Which PPC is it?

monkeynuts45

Which PPC is it?

ES Parking

Coupon-mad

If you put ES Parking into 'Search this forum' (ADVANCED SEARCH) and change to SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS you get 220 posts, most of which are about their court cases, with defences and all sorts discussed.

monkeynuts45

Right i am here re-writing the defence and I have a question with regards the below points:

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.

In the claim it states

"parked in breach of the terms and conditions stipulated on the signage (the 'contract')....

Now i get that the signage is unreadable therefore no contract can be entered into etc.. But do i drop these statements especially 4. from the defence as they have stated in the claim, or are these still valid as the signage is poor.

Or do i change the wording on 4. to something like the:

4. Although the claim states the vehicle was parked in breach of contract, 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.

Le_Kirk

If you check out the defence examples written by Bargepole and others in post # 2 of the NEWBIE thread you will find those exact statements. Just choose the one that is closes to your situation.

monkeynuts45

If you check out the defence examples written by Bargepole and others in post # 2 of the NEWBIE thread you will find those exact statements. Just choose the one that is closes to your situation.

I am, that's what i am dissecting atm, made some good progress on it today (well i think so, other may not:)) But these 2 parts of the statements seem to be up for interpretation, nothing in the examples that are bang on the money for me. Was just seeking some clarity.

Will continue to work on the defence and post later for critique.

monkeynuts45

Hi All back again, below is the draft i have been working on, i am more inclined to remove number 2 and just go with the standard inclination of poor signage. After re-visiting the car park this afternoon the signage is still illegible with re: terms and conditions and the newer signs added after the material date do nothing to improve the situation being of a smaller font and high position, they definitely are not legible from a passing vehicle, and require very close scrutiny.

Draft 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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date breaching 2 bays due to the size of parking spaces (w = 2.1m) which forced other vehicles to breach the lines, and did not allow parking within the marked space. The space provided is unsuitable to allow a door on a standard size car to be opened allowing safe egress from a vehicles. Parking bay guidelines state:
''When assessing the area needed for staff and customer parking, it should be noted that the current UK norm for parking spaces is 2.4 metres wide by 4.8 metres long. These dimensions are neither minimum nor written in tablets of stone, and may be revised to suit your particular needs, but remember that good access and wider bays aids efficient use of the parking area.''

The small bays force the public to breach the bay lines resulting in a domino effect along the parking bays.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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. Although the claimant states the vehicle was parked in breach of contract, 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. Additionally at the material date the only signage was on a reflective background renders any print illegible. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. 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.

8. 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 £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9 The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite being well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the charges have not been invoiced and/or paid. This appears to be an additional attempt at double recovery and a way to inflate the value of the claim. In the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred.

9.1The £50 legal representative’s cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGEMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”. The £50 was also struck out by DJ Sparrow on 19 August 2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S, claim number B9FC508F.

10. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

11. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

12. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

13. The Defendant respectfully suggests that 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.

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.