Gladstones - Court Defence Review

Jhottt

Any responses to the points listed I can use in court would be appreciated

nosferatu1001

Yes, you were told to give us info in post 20
And you were told to write a WS. Have you read post 2 again?

Oh man. Para 10 is TERRIBLE.

Jhottt

Sorry yes - WS, evidence etc is due 3rd December 2019.

I'll be preparing all of that today and will share once completed.

What I meant from my previous comment was is there anything I should be mentioning specifically about para 10 if it reaches court?

Jhottt

TBH I don't really understand the claimants 9th point in the defence responding to my point around grace periods:

"....The grace period is not a session of free parking as the motorist left the vehicle parked on the site, he made use of the facilities and therefore the grace period does not apply"

nosferatu1001

In your WS you can add a section at the end wher eyou rebut THEIR WS
You can point out that point 10 is a complete nonsense. You presume their copy and paste WS has gone even more wrong than usual, and you struggle how this can have been verified by a statement of truth.
}The claimant clearly states there is "no parking at all", and therefore confirms there can be no contract in place as that cannot possibly, under any stretch of construction, be construed as an offer. So either their statement is trying to mislead the court, or it is an error causing their statement to be cast into doubt

Rememebr OP - offer, acceptance, consideration. Three elements to a contract. WIthout the first, theyre stuffed.

For 9) The grace period ALWAYS applies. Theyre not permitted to exclude it. Theyre saying that as the grace period was not used to read signs, but to leave site, there was actually no grace period. WHich is a nonsense.

Jhottt

Legend, thanks! Is it strange that I'm actually looking forward to this court date.

Hopefully an early Christmas present for the good guys :beer:

Jhottt

A very early draft submitted for feedback - is this along the right lines?

1. I am ___, of ___, the defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked JH00 to which I will refer. I will say as follows:

2. On Saturday ___, I visited Site 1085/Shell Garage, Salterhebble and parked my vehicle registration number ___ behind the main service station.

3. I had previously visited the McDonalds and was not aware that the two premises were not related due to the lack of signage and distinct separation between the sites. Both sites share entrance and exit points with zero signage as to the boundaries. (See evidence JH001)

4. I temporarily parked my vehicle to check the contents of my previous purchase and quickly realised that my order was incorrect. I proceeded to leave the vehicle and quickly head back to McDonalds to rectify the mistake.

5. On exiting the vehicle there was no immediate visual indication of a no parking area as other facilities are located just metres away such as an ATM, Air Pump etc and all in use it was difficult to assess where any boundaries lay.

6. On returning I did stop and observe a small notice that’s visibility was masked due to its placement within surrounding advertisement banners. These banners have been subsequently removed since the alleged incident (see evidence JH002) The signage at the site was so deficient that it cannot be said that a contract for parking was clearly offered and it is denied that one was considered and accepted. (see evidence JH003)

7. As evidenced by the claimant the total time the vehicle was parked totalled 6 minutes – which falls within the 10-minute grace period specified in the BPA Code of Practice (See evidence JH004) The grace period always applies. The claimant is not permitted to exclude it as they falsely state in point 9 of their defence.

8. I did not receive any physical ‘Parking Charge Notice’ prior to returning to the vehicle. HX Car Park Management have consciously elected to deploy predatory, misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. In this instance the parking agent was on the site, coincidentally parked in an unmarked vehicle. This is a clear breach of 14.1 of the International Parking Community Code of Practise (see evidence JH005)

9. Lastly, I would like to refute Gladstones Witness Statement. Regarding point 10 of their defence - this paragraph cannot be verified by a statement of truth. The claimant clearly states during this point that there is “no parking at all” and therefore confirms that there can be no contract in place as that cannot possibly, under any stretch of construction be construed as an offer.

Jhottt

..... Will revise today but any initial comments?

I've completed a cost schedule also but this is pretty generic.

Coupon-mad

the 10-minute grace period specified in the BPA Code of Practice (See evidence JH004)

If this is HX, they aren't in the BPA AOS! you need the iPC CoP.

And you need a supplementary WS using the words I edited yesterday in post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread, and a copy of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act (the grey list) with paras 6, 10 and 14 highlighted if their sign did not actually state as a £sum, the added fake 'debt collector costs'.

And you need another sheet as evidence, with paras 98, 193, and 198 of Beavis case with the phrase from each para highlighted, that clearly says the costs of the operation are already in the parking charge sum (ergo the costs can't be collected twice as that would be double recovery as was found at Southampton on Monday at the case I went to - read CEC16's thread).

The Guidance to the CRA 2015 also says the word 'indemnity' (as possibly used by Gladstones in their POC?) is also open to challenge as unfair as it is not transparent and has no meaning to the average consumer. It also expands about how a trader cannot recover the same costs twice.

Everyone doing a WS (other than ParkingEye cases) should be using the above.

Jhottt

Thanks alot!

Sorry for the obvious questions:

IIRC the IPC doesn't specify a timed grace period?

So, I simply copy and paste all the content in #14 that starts with "The purported added costs...."? And use this as a supplementary WS (Not entirely sure what a supplementary WS is?)

The above text already makes reference to the three paragraphs of the Beavis case. Are you saying I need to attach the full brevis case as evidence also?