Gladstones - Court Defence Review

Jhottt

Afternoon all,

Firstly, I’ve read the majority of the past cases referenced in the ‘Newbies thread’ and tried to tailor certain points based on my PCN case. I’d like to express my gratitude and passion to everyone fighting these absurd charges! Through the use of the forum I’ve been able to identify similar cases at the exact same site so thanks a lot.

I received my County Claim Letter on the 11th June 2019 and submitted a SAR to HX Car Park Management and my AOS on the 17th June– I didn’t realise the previous letter I received was LBC (letter before court) so didn’t manage to get the ball rolling with the SAR until now unfortunately, does this matter? Should I also email Gladstone’s to let them know I’ve requested a SAR of their client -based on a previous post or is this too late to delay proceedings?

I’m not sure the level of background you guys require in order to help out, so if I’ve missed something out please let me know. In summary, I stopped my vehicle behind a service station for 6 minutes.

Some questions I have:

- Do I need to argue/dispute any points about using the McDonalds at the separate site? They have an image of me with a McDonald’s but it wasn’t due to me being parked there and I struggle to see how they can prove that and what difference it makes?

- Their website doesn’t let users view additional photos unfortunately; this is something I’ve requested via a SAR request to verify if the photos are legible – they attached one to the original request in November – Time on site seems arguable given the photographs, what constitutes as the site entrance and exit? How can they distinguish when I ‘stopped’?.

- Is the defence too short? Anything else I can highlight to strengthen my case ?


Appreciate the time taken to review – cheers! Posted in a new comment below.

Jhottt

1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is also denied that the defendant entered any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.

2) The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in an inaccessible, illegible manner. Firstly, the font which is too small to be read from a vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the content would be unable to do so easily. This is primarily due to the positioning of the signage. Evidenced in the attached photos (Page 1 – exhibit 1) the claimant’s signage is clearly masked in amongst advertising boards, rendering it obstructed and unable to clearly identify its importance as appose to irrelevant advertisement. A key factor in ‘Parking Eye vs Beavis’ stated that the relevant signs were ‘Large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature’ the claimant has failed to address the points above. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

3) The Claimants signage with the largest font at this site states “!!!NO STOPPING AT ALL!!!” (Refer to Page 1 – Exhibit 2) It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.



4) The terms of the claimant’s signage failed to detail the specified grace period at the site location. Furthermore, the grace period policy is not present or made publically available to view on the claimant’s website, rendering it impossible to know the terms and conditions of the alleged contract. Section 15.1 of the Independent Parking Committees Code of Practice states that “Drivers should have sufficient amount of time to park and read signs so they can make informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site” - The defendant is alleged to have been present on the site 6 minutes (Refer to Page 1 – Exhibit 3) 1 minute over the unknown imposed grace period at the site. The defendant took a reasonable grace period merely to comply with the terms, but could not due to the lack of information and lack of immediate awareness of signage (points 2 & 3). The defendant therefore left without accepting any form of contract.

5) The Claimant has internationally failed to provide the actual grace period that applies at this site, both physically and virtually. The highlighted 5 minute grace period solely mentioned in the defence appeal rejection should be disregarded as an attempt to mislead. In accordance with the official British Parking Association article by Kevin Reynolds this discusses ‘Observation Periods’ on arrival being additional and separate to a ‘Grace period’.

6) The claimant’s entrance signage is non-existent on the site. According to Part E – Section 1 – Signage of the Independent Parking Committees Code of Practise - “Entrance signs should: (a) make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. (b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions”. The site is comprised of two separate businesses which confusingly both operate using the same entrance and exit roads. Therefore, without any explicit signage it is unclear where the boundaries and responsibilities start and subsequently end. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's lack of signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. On Page 2, please refer to exhibit 3, which shows numerous views of the entrance and exit points.

7) The claimants failed to comply with Section 14.1 of the International Parking Community code of practice. This states “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 and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to of the code”. In this instance the parking agent has acted in an unprofessional, predatory manner by masking his presence in an unmarked vehicle on the premises and captured images immediately upon entry on a personal device. Section 9.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states “Vehicles engaged in parking enforcement, such as ANPR vehicles, are marked clearly with appropriate livery or your business name, so that members of the public can see that you are the operator” which further highlights the unprofessional, predatory manner of data collection.

8) The claimant’s lack of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipment coupled with the parking agent’s deceptive working practices makes it difficult to conclude when the vehicle is in motion and when it is stationary. The limited photographic evidenced provided clearly indicates that the cars brake lights are in operation, this could be due to queuing to exit the site. Therefore, the defendant disputes the validity and potential unethical collection of the photographic evidence.

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. 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.


10) Any breach is strongly denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'.

11) In addition to the Parking Charge Notice, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

12) In the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative’ costs, artificially hiking the sum to £242.58. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous, the claimant has added this additional cost for which no calculation or explanation is given and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

13) The Defendant is alarmed by this gross miss conduct and abuse of process. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. It is an abuse of process for a Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for additional sums which it is not entitled to recover. In Claim number F0DP201T, 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out BPA member Claimants Britannia and UKCPM. The Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

14) According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

15) 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. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim and to allow such defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

beamerguy

You have HIGHLIGHTED the Abuse Of Process .... GOOD

I would make this more clear to a judge

What you mean by this ..
5) The Claimant has internationally failed

Jhottt

Oops, I meant intentionally.

Not sure if that should be said though as I cant really prove if that was the intent

KeithP

You say you received your County Court Claim on the 11th June 2019.

Can you please tell us the Issue Date on that Claim Form and did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else??

Jhottt

Sorry yes, the issue date was 11/06/2019 and came from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton

I submitted the AOS on the 17/06/2019 along with the SAR

KeithP

Jhottt wrote: »

Sorry yes, the issue date was 11/06/2019 and came from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton

I submitted the AOS on the 17/06/2019 along with the SAR

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th June, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks 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.

Coupon-mad

gross miss conduct

Who is she?

Jhottt

:rotfl:haha - thanks! Revised.

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.

Jhottt

Hey All,

So quick update.

The case got transferred to my local court of choice where the judge ordered the claimant to respond to my defence.

I received a response from Gladstones in the post yesterday. However, the first page was titled 'Notice of Discontinuation' but then the contents inside were a reply to my defense....