Gladstones Defence required Urgent

monkeynuts45

Any feedback on the above?

beamerguy

Paragraph # 10

You need to know the facts about Pinky and Perky, AKA Davies and Hurley

Both as Gladstones set up the scam. Once the Gladstones/IPC scam was uncovered, these 2 rogues split (on paper) so one went the Gladstones way and the other went to the IPC.

We all know that the same scam operates, government knows of the Davies/Hurley scam

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/all-change-at-gladstones-and-ipc.html

Just be careful of what you put in a defence

monkeynuts45

Both as Gladstones set up the scam. Once the Gladstones/IPC scam was uncovered, these 2 rogues split (on paper) so one went the Gladstones way and the other went to the IPC.

Will check companies house later, looking at the link you put up, even if the shareholder is 49% and non controlling that is still the only other shareholder, so controlling on paper or not still an influential share holder.

Umkomaas

monkeynuts45 wrote: »

Will check companies house later, looking at the link you put up, even if the shareholder is 49% and non controlling that is still the only other shareholder, so controlling on paper or not still an influential share holder.

Complete distraction. Has no bearing on dealing with your case.

monkeynuts45

Complete distraction. Has no bearing on dealing with your case.

Ok, so remove number 10 completely?

How about number 2, still not sure on this point.

monkeynuts45

Hi All, i have removed the reference to the Gladstones IPC link, as pointed out as not relevant to my case, at the point of no return soon as I need to submit the defence tomorrow. Any other feedback welcomed.

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 = 2.2m) 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 as 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; “JUDGMENT 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 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.


Thanks so far for all the input

Umkomaas

10, 11 and 12 have no part to play. The court is only concerned as to whether the charge is legitimate, it will not base its judgment on the process by which the solicitors progressed the charge - more an issue for a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), but don't waste your time!

In relation to point 2 - if straddling the line was forbidden in the signage (the purported contract between you and the PPC), the admission that it was doesn't help you one bit, regardless of why, so, my view is not to go there. But I'm not the defence/court expert on this board, so see if others have a view on it.

monkeynuts45

10, 11 and 12 have no part to play. The court is only concerned as to whether the charge is legitimate, it will not base its judgment on the process by which the solicitors progressed the charge - more an issue for a complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), but don't waste your time!

Noted, I used these from and existing defence with regards to Gladstone, that other members had good feedback on. I see your point, and potentially will file a complaint with the SRA. I have already spoke to my councillor and have penned a mail to my MP as ES are part of this whole parking scam, which is having a direct effect on the viability of our town centre. Local forums are awash with people boycotting the town centre because of this exact issue.

In relation to point 2 - if straddling the line was forbidden in the signage (the purported contract between you and the PPC), the admission that it was doesn't help you one bit, regardless of why, so, my view is not to go there. But I'm not the defence/court expert on this board, so see if others have a view on it.

That was my feeling too, but i thought i would add it at this point, as you state there are many other opinions on this forum and its easily deleted if, as i feel probably wont help me in the long run.

monkeynuts45

Update with the removal of the mentioned above.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.
5. 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 as 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; “JUDGMENT 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. 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.

monkeynuts45

Any feedback on the above before I send this?