ANOTHER Euro Parking / Gladstones bites the dust - Not parked in (non-existent) marked bay or space

beamerguy

brummie108 wrote: »

Legal is Gladstones Solicitors.

For your witness statement

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal&highlight=abuse+of+process

PLEASE READ POST #14 ON THIS THREAD BY COUPON-MAD

You add the text in..... it's entirety

Gladstones adding a fake amount which is Abuse of Process

The claim from Gladstones will have been signed as a "statement of truth" ..... with a fake add-on .... THAT IS NOT THE TRUTH

brummie108

Thanks for the replies again guys, how does this as a defence look?
Unsure whether or not to include para 2b, I'm keen to explain to the court why, when it looks like I've just been ignoring their letters for the past year, that was in fact when I first received a letter and I responded immediately:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver 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. The facts of the matter are that:

(a) The Defendant had a valid parking ticket, which was clearly displayed, for the entire duration of the parking period.
(b) The Defendant first received written communication from the Claimant, to the correct address, about the their claim on DATE HERE, x months after the material date. The Defendant contacted the Claimant to acknowledge their letter immediately.

3. The basis of the current claim is that the Defendant’s vehicle was ‘not parked correctly within the marking of the bay or the space’, yet the area of land which forms the car park has no clearly marked bays or spaces. There are no white lines, or indeed any painted lines, which demarcate ‘bays or spaces’. Given this lack of clarity regarding where a driver who has paid the correct parking change and thus has a valid parking permit for the allotted time displayed on the ticket, is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the!contra proferentem!principle.

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

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.


Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
6. 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.

7. 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. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature!of!a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

8. 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.

9. 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.!

10. 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.!

11. 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.

12. 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...''

13. 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.

14. 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.!

15. 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.!



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

Redx

You get the chance to tell your story to the court later down the line in your witness statement with your evidence exhibits

Your defence is just the legal arguments, but 2b is fine

Before the words IT IS Ordered , add something similar to

The judges stated

brummie108

Thanks for the replies once again.

Any final changes recommended to my defence from anyone before I post off to Northampton tomorrow?

KeithP

brummie108 wrote: »

Any final changes recommended to my defence from anyone before I post off to Northampton tomorrow?

Surely you won't be posting anything?
Have another read of post #9 above where it talks about emailing your Defence.

That same post also says:

...you have until 4pm on Tuesday 27th August 2019 to file your Defence.

Don't rush this step. Take time to get it right.

Coupon-mad

No-one here posts a PPC defence by mail.

Imagine if it went astray, and you certainly do not want to be wasting postage on this scam when email gives you the proof of immediate receipt.

brummie108

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No-one here posts a PPC defence by mail.

Imagine if it went astray, and you certainly do not want to be wasting postage on this scam when email gives you the proof of immediate receipt.

KeithP wrote: »

Surely you won't be posting anything?
Have another read of post #9 above where it talks about emailing your Defence.

That same post also says:

Don't rush this step. Take time to get it right.

The stickies and guides that I read specifically instructed the read to print and post in, as the text-entry box on the online system messes up the formatting, is this to be ignored then?

I'm going abroad for a while now, hence why I'll be submitting it today. I've read over my defence many times now, and can't think of anything else to add to be honest, it's been formed with paragraphs and help from the great minds on this wonderful forum, so don't see the point in putting it off any longer.

Further thoughts on content:
My SAR request has now come back from Euro, the only additional piece of information contained therein was that a ticket was not affixed to my car window at the time because 'the printer was not working', is it worth adding this to the background section?
One of the points I'm especially annoyed about is that this took place in March 2018, yet the first I heard of this was in March 2019, when the original '£60 penalty' had increased to £160. Had they affixed a ticket to my car on the day in question, or had they written to me at my actual address for that matter, I could have been contesting a much smaller amount.
Worth adding?

Again, very thankful for everyone's help.

Redx

those sticky guides were written a few years ago by member BARGEPOLE

since then the CCBC has allowed email defence attachments which can be added to your account

therefore email is best, not royal mail , its also instant , free and gets an emailed acknowledgment of receipt, which is what you require

KeithP tells everyone what to do in one of his replies

I am sure you may have an old tv guide lying around , but I can assure you it wont tell you what is on this evening on bbc1

you may have your old postal spot the ball entries too, but you would possibly be logging in online to do your entry before you go in this day and age, not post


save your ammunition for your WS , now that you have it , but if no NTK pcn by post was included in the SAR return , state that no postal pcn has ever been received by the keeper


by the way , you are still only contesting the original £100 pcn charge , not the fake £160 because the added £60 was not allowed


you havent edited your defence with the following


The judges stated

brummie108

Redx wrote: »

those sticky guides were written a few years ago by member BARGEPOLE

since then the CCBC has allowed email defence attachments which can be added to your account

therefore email is best, not royal mail , its also instant , free and gets an emailed acknowledgment of receipt, which is what you require

KeithP tells everyone what to do in one of his replies

I am sure you may have an old tv guide lying around , but I can assure you it wont tell you what is on this evening on bbc1

you may have your old postal spot the ball entries too, but you would possibly be logging in online to do your entry before you go in this day and age, not post


save your ammunition for your WS , now that you have it , but if no NTK pcn by post was included in the SAR return , state that no postal pcn has ever been received by the keeper


by the way , you are still only contesting the original £100 pcn charge , not the fake £160 because the added £60 was not allowed


you havent edited your defence with the following


The judges stated

I believe the below is now correct, and ready to be submitted, has 'the judges stated' indeed been inserted at the correct position?:
(Please ignore all the exclamation marks, that's an error that mysteriously appears when pasting text into here)

In The County Court:
Claim No: NUMBERHERE
Between
Euro Parking Services Limited (Claimant)

-and-

NAMEHERE (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number 0000 000 on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that:
(a) The Defendant had a valid parking ticket, which was clearly displayed, for the entire duration of the parking period.
(b) The Defendant first received written communication from the Claimant at his address about their claim on DATEHERE, which is 14 months after the material date. The Defendant contacted the Claimant to acknowledge their letter immediately.

3. The basis of the current claim is that the Defendant’s vehicle was ‘not parked correctly within the marking of the bay or the space’, yet the area of land which forms the car park has no clearly marked bays or spaces. There are no white lines, or indeed any painted lines, which demarcate ‘bays or spaces’. Given this lack of clarity regarding where a driver who has paid the correct parking change and thus has a valid parking permit for the allotted time displayed on the ticket, is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the!contra proferentem!principle.

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

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.


Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
6. 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.

7. 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. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature!of!a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

8. 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.



9. 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.!

10. 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.!

11. 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.

12. 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:!
The judges stated ''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...''

13. 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.

14. 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.!

15. 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.


NAME HERE

Le_Kirk

You just need to remove those spare "!" exclamation marks.