Help with new claim please!!

Dizzie1988

Hello All,

This is my first post and I have been following all the great advice and support you have provided on these forums and has helped guide me so far.

I received a claim form on the 19/07/2019.
I have just filled out the AOS online using the kind guide which was provided on the main page of newbies post.

Background of PCN:

-My father who is elderly man with disabilities was using my vechicle (lease hire) and parked at nighttime at Atlip centre on single yellow line. He wasn’t aware of any surrounding signage due to lack of light.

03/05/2018 Issue of PCN from CPM.

Appeal was made using template on newbies post. No identification of driver given.

Several letters later, received letter before claim- on the 04/06/2019 from Gladstones

Due to being out of the country during June, I missed this letter and on 04/07/19 received another letter before claim.

13/07/19 sent SAR request to to CPM-no response yet.

13/07/19 sent email to Gladstones for restriction of data processing- no response either.

19/07/19 letter of claim

Please can you give advice on what to do next and any examples which would be most suited for my response? I have read some of the examples on the newbies post and have some insight.

Will I have to attend a local court hearing? Can I claim from loss loss of business earnings as It is very difficult for me to take time off.

Many thanks everyone!

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

You tell us you "received a claim form on the 19/07/2019", but what was the Issue Date on that Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

Dizzie1988

Thank you for you quick response KeithP

Sorry the Issue date was 19/07/19

Saw this today.

Correct from Court Business Centre in Northampton.

KeithP

Dizzie1988 wrote: »

Sorry the Issue date was 19/07/19

Correct from Court Business Centre in Northampton.

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th July, you have until Wednesday 7th August to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 21st August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but please 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.

Redx

No you do not have to attend the court, but it is advisable to do so

Costs are limited in small claims, so it's down to you to put forward your costs and up to the judge what they will allow

For private cases it tends to be around £95

You are not doing a response, you are drafting your defence to go to the CCBC by email

Coupon-mad

Will I have to attend a local court hearing?

No you do not have to attend the court, but it is advisable to do so

And if you don't the outcome is down to you, not us, for going against our clear advice on how to win.

People usually lose hopelessly by not turning up, and get crushed with all the costs too and pay about £300. Nononono.

DO NOT be that person, costing yourself that much after all the effort of defending!

If you are not going to attend you also have to write to tell the Judge 2 weeks before, not just duck it on the day.

Can I claim from loss loss of business earnings as It is very difficult for me to take time off.

If you file a costs schedule in advance and take proof of your daily rate with you, and if you win.

Dizzie1988

Thank you for all your help!
AoS has been completed online.

Just preparing the defence and will post on here for feedback if you don’t mind.
I will follow all the advice given on this forum and therefore attend local court hearing.

Just frustrating I am in process of moving now and don’t miss to miss any correspondence over the coming weeks/months. Do I need to contact county court and Gladstones to advise of new address? How about UKCPM?

What is the usual time period between deadline of defence filed and an actual court date?

All your advice is great appreciated

Redx

yes, keep them all in the loop

probably 4 to 6 months is typical waiting time


perhaps you can nominate your NEW local court for your NEW address ?

The_Deep

Have you read this?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reasonable-adjustments-a-legal-duty/reasonable-adjustments-a-legal-duty

did the PPC comply? If not consider a counter claim for disability discrimination. Also get your MP on board as nine times out of ten these tickets are scams.

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.

Dizzie1988

Hi all,

Please see 2nd draft of report. Any suggestions or criticism please, or anything further I can add to bulk it up?

In The County Court
Claim No:
Between
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

(Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number … on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

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

3. The facts of matter are that the driver was a disabled person and I refer to the The Equality Act 2010 which states that you must not be discriminated against because:
-you have a disability
-someone thinks you have a disability (this is known as discrimination by perception)
-you are connected to someone with a disability (this is known as discrimination by association)

Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty on all employers to make "reasonable adjustments" that places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with people who are not disabled. The driver had a clear visible and valid disability parking permit displayed in the windscreen.

4. 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. 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.

5. 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 £100.00

6.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 especially at night. 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.

7. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

-8. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. All debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

9. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

10. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

11. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

13. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 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 a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet 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. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

15. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

16. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:

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



Signature
Date

Also, to inform Gladstone’s, UKCPM and county court of change of address should I do all via email?

Is it ok to call county court to advise of this?

Many thanks again for reading.

KeithP

Para 1. In your opening post you told us you were not the driver.

Para 2. There is no para 2.

Para 3. Surely you are denying the driver breached any terms?

Para 5. Did the Notice to Keeper really say £160?


Need something in there stating that they have not successfully transferred the driver's liability to the keeper - if that's the case.