Gladstones claim. I have no defence.

Weirdfish1984

Hi all.

First time posting in a forum so excuse me if i make any mistakes.

In 2015 the driver (not me) of a car registered in my name parked on a pub car park without paying.

Not long after this i moved house but hadn't changed the address on my V5, so any correspondence would have gone to my old address.

A few days ago i received court papers at my new address, Gladstones are claiming £260 on behalf of Premier Park LTD.

I have read into it, have read the Newbies thread and the FAQ's and understand the process.

I have done the SAR to Gladstones and PPC and awaiting the response.

I do know that the parking did take place and that there are pretty clear signs at the entrance to the car park and honestly cannot think of any defence to my case apart from double recovery.

So my question is. Should i just pay up as i know that the driver parked and didnt pay. Should i go to court in the hope that i can win on the double recovery or at least end up paying less. Or is there some magic defence that i can use that i have missed?

Sorry i dont have any other information just yet other than what is on the very vague court papers as i am awaiting the SAR and as previously said any PCN's and debt letters would have gone to my old address.

Thanks

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

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

Weirdfish1984

Hi Keith


It is from Northampton and was issued on the17th July so i have less than a week to acknowledge and need to get any defence underway ASAP as im off on my holidays in 2 weeks.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, you have until Monday 5th 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 Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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

As keeper and not driver your main defence is POFA

Also include no landowner authority, poor and inadequate signage , any BPA Cop failures, double recovery and abuse of process

Now tell us again why you have no defence ? (After reading my comments about what to include)

The_Deep

Ask yourself why they have waited so long to bring this acai, almost certainly because they considered that they case was flimsy. Now they may only have a few weeks to do so and are hoping that you are an easy mark.

as Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, 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. so

Weirdfish1984

[FONT=&quot]Here is my dradt defence, its rather long but i would appreciate it if somedody could have alook at it and give any feedback.
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thanks [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The claim is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons.[/FONT]

• [FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim are insufficient for the Defendant to properly defend themselves. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]POFA 2012 has not been complied with.[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]The claim includes charges produced from thin air that is a clear attempt at double recovery and is an abuse of process. [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]The signage does not offer a contract with the driver[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]The Claimant has no standing to bring the case[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Malfunction of ANPR system[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim for the defendant file a full defence. Typical of this type of “robo-claim”, the claimant’s particulars of claim are almost non-existent. The only information included relating to the claim is a date and time, and a vehicle registration. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In addition to poor POC, the Claimant has failed to ever contact the Defendant at the correct address in the 3 ½ years that has passed since the date of the alleged parking. Therefore, the defendant has never received any correspondence at all relating to the PCN that was allegedly issued and was not aware of any PCN until receiving the Court Claim form issued on 17th July 2019.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]At the time of submission of this defence the Claimant has also failed to respond to a subject access request sent by the Defendant in an attempt to find further details of the alleged parking. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]All of these factors have significantly put the Defendant at a disadvantage, and it is suspected the claimant will attempt to ambush the Defendant with information at any future court hearing. It is requested that this in taken into consideration by the court. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Due to the lack of information from the Claimant the Defendant has assumed that the parking charge was issued by way of ANPR, as that is the current method of enforcement in use on the car park. [/FONT]


1. [FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim (PoC) are insufficient for the Defendant to properly defend themselves. [/FONT]
1.1. [FONT=&quot]The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. [/FONT]
1.2. [FONT=&quot]The PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. [/FONT]
1.3. [FONT=&quot]The PoC are extremely sparse and do not provide enough information for the defendant to properly defend themselves. The Defendant has had to write a defence whilst completely blind to the intentions of the claimant and their representative. [/FONT]
1.4. [FONT=&quot]The Defendant knows none of the circumstances of the alleged parking and has been severely disadvantaged by the claimant and left at risk of being ambushed with information at any court hearing leaving them unable to defend themselves. [/FONT]
1.5. [FONT=&quot]This is unacceptable conduct by a private parking company and legal company who are highly experienced in this type of claim and should be considered an abuse of process. It is requested that for this reason the case is struck out. [/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has not been complied with.[/FONT]
2.1. [FONT=&quot]The defendant has not received any correspondence from the Claimant relating to the parking charge prior to receiving the Claim Form issued on 17th July 2019 (the claimants address changes shortly after the date of the parking charge but nothing was ever received at the new address, nor was the Defendant aware of any notices sent to ?????????????). It is therefore disputed that the claimant has failed to meet the strict conditions of POFA 2012, and as a result the Claimant cannot pursue the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and the case should be struck out. [/FONT]
2.2. [FONT=&quot]The Claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with all elements of POFA 2012.[/FONT]
2.3. [FONT=&quot]Regardless of the above, according to POFA 2012 Schedule 4 the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant Notice to Keeper. In the case that the Notice to Keeper was compliant the Claimant can only recover the original PCN amount of £100. (£100 is the ceiling amount set by the trade bodies.)[/FONT]
2.4. [FONT=&quot]The claimant’s request of £260 is therefore grossly inflated and is an abuse of process and an attempt at double recovery not compliant with POFA 2012. The Claim should therefore be struck out. [/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]The claim includes charges produced from thin air that is a clear attempt at double recovery and is an abuse of process. [/FONT]
3.1. [FONT=&quot]Legal Representatives Costs[/FONT]
3.1.1. [FONT=&quot]The claim includes a sum of £60, described as legal representative’s costs. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant, using the bulk processing service. Given the number of automated auto-filled claims the claimant files, the claimant’s solicitor can spend no more than a few minutes if any time at all per claim, hardly justifying the £60. [/FONT]
3.1.2. [FONT=&quot]Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant should maintain case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient.[/FONT]
3.1.3. [FONT=&quot]The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no ‘expert services’ are involved. [/FONT]
3.1.4. [FONT=&quot]Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the £100 parking charge, this is essentially double charging. [/FONT]
3.1.5. [FONT=&quot]The defendant therefore puts the claimant strictly to proof, by way of timesheets or otherwise, that work was done by the litigant’s expert staff to the value of £60.[/FONT]
3.2. [FONT=&quot]Contractual Costs pursuant to PNC Terms and Conditions[/FONT]
3.2.1. [FONT=&quot]The Claim includes a charge of £60 that the Claimant states are contractual costs pursuant to PNC Terms and Conditions. [/FONT]
3.2.2. [FONT=&quot]This charge, plucked from thin air, and is a clear attempt at double recovery. [/FONT]
3.2.3. [FONT=&quot]The Claimant is put to strictly prove that these costs were actually incurred. In the case that the Claimant can show these costs were incurred it is argued that any such costs are factored into the original PCN amount of £100 and are therefore unenforceable charges. [/FONT]
3.2.4. [FONT=&quot]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...''[/FONT]
3.2.5.
4. [FONT=&quot]The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist[/FONT]
4.1. [FONT=&quot]It is assumed the claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.[/FONT]
4.2. [FONT=&quot]It is disputed that at the time of the parking charge in December 2015 signage was present that offered a contract. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present. Although the Claimant has not provided a signage map in many of their car parks signs are positioned in such a way as to create ‘entrapment zones’ where signage is not clearly visible. The Claimant is put strictly to proof that this is not the case on this site.[/FONT]
4.3. [FONT=&quot]The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.[/FONT]
5. [FONT=&quot]The Claimant has no standing to bring the case.[/FONT]
5.1. [FONT=&quot]The Claimant is put to strictly prove that they have the authority from the owner to bring the case against the defendant.[/FONT]
6. [FONT=&quot]Malfunction of ANPR system[/FONT]
6.1. [FONT=&quot]ANPR systems have been known to record double visits as single visits and issue parking charges in error. [/FONT]
6.2. [FONT=&quot]There is the possibility that the driver of the vehicle had made 2 visits without parking and the ANPR had malfunctioned or the number plate been obscured (for example by a larger vehicle) upon the first exit of the car park. [/FONT]
6.3. [FONT=&quot]The claimant cannot ask the driver whether the alleged ANPR details are correct as the claimant has left it so long to contact them at the correct address the Claimant has simply forgotten who was driving the car on that day. [/FONT]
6.4. [FONT=&quot]The claimant is therefore put to strictly prove that the information recorded by the ANPR system is correct. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In summary the Claimants particular’s disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendants position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Claimant had not demonstrated that they have complied with the protection of freedoms Act 2012, nor that the parking charge is indeed enforceable due to signage at the site, their standing to bring action against the claimant or the reliability of the ANPR system. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Claimant’s attempts at inflating the cost of the claim should be regarded as an abuse of process and an attempt ad double recovery.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

The_Slithy_Tove

I only skipped though this, but what immediately stands out are

• You say POFA not complied with. But not what that means. It means you cannot be held liable as Keeper, and only the driver can be liable. If you don't say this, all you are making is a statement with no conclusion. And anyway, you need to be specific around how it's not compliant - where does it fall down?
• Is ANPR relevant? It was a failure to pay, not an overstay. Unless you are claiming the car wasn't there at all and the ANPR got the number wrong (and I don't think you are), then claiming that ANPR sometimes misreads is a pointless exercise.

Umkomaas

Have you used legally qualified bargepole's concise defence model from the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2? It's the best there is.

I suspect not, because he makes it clear that sub-numbering of paragraphs should be avoided. A simple sequential numbering of each paragraph should be adopted to make it straightforward for a Judge you hope will side with you.

Le_Kirk

I would second the suggestion by Umkomaas that you read some or all of the 17 pre-written defences in the NEWBIE thread where you will also learn about the style of the defence (particularly as you have some repetition about the POC) and may also pick up some points you have missed or want to add.

Good to see you have done research about Abuse of Process but you need to make clear in your renumbered 3.2.4 that you are QUOTING from previous cases not issuing an instruction of order to the court.