Gladstones LBC help to prepare

KeithP

Frozenfire wrote: »

Umkomaas- Date of issue is 6-9-19, I have it in my calendar to submit defense by 11-10-19.

Your diary needs adjusting.

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th September, you have until Wednesday 25th September to do the Acknowledgement of Service. If possible, do not do the AoS before 11th September, but otherwise 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 9th October 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could 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.

Frozenfire

Thanks all.
I sent the AOS already (9th)
Next post I will upload the defence.
I want it ready within a few weeks as really busy, then I will set alarm to upload it.

In the meantime, I will ask the gym exactly how long I was signed in for and see if I can use it in the defence as grace period.

Many thanks.

Frozenfire

Hi all,

So not sure on grace period, everything I read points to needing a ticket.
Here is what I have for defence so far-


IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx xxx in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. The Claimant's signage located on the way in to Whittle Square is based just off a round-a-bout and is displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, any attempt to read the tiny font while driving would almost certainy cause a road traffic incident.

4.1 The closest signage to where the vehicle xxxx xxx was parked is located approximately 10 metres away, and at the time the PNC was issued, the sign was obstructed by a large van, as evident on one of the claimants photographs.
One of the other signs is 10 metres in the opposite direction to where I was going.
Both signs are very small with a very small font.
4.2 The signange states "Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay"' but there are no clearly marked bays near to where my vehicle was parked, only slightly different shades of blockwork paving, crudely imitating a parking bay.
The area where my vehicle was parked has the same colour paving as the so called 'bays'

It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. Vehicle xxxx xxx was parked in an area where numerous vehicles park everyday (due to being an unmarked area and not obstructing vehicles or pedestrians).
A quick approximate calculation considering my stay time of approximatley 5 to 10 minutes would mean that the claimant could be issuing nearly 100 PCN'S in this one spot in an 8 hour day.
In 1 year this would equate to over £1.5 Million pounds.
The conclusion is that this is probably an area purposely set up to 'trap' innocent victims in to paying over inflated claims.

6. (Should I mention here about only being parked for 10 minutes to sign in and ask where to park to carry out works)

No standing or landowner authority

7. 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 under defined parameters and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

No legitimate interest or commercial justification

8. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing defendant for a hundredfold penalty, for the ordinary and reasonable conduct explained in this defence.

8.1. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.

Unconscionable sum claimed - double recovery - abuse of process

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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.

9.1 In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of its claim by adding purported but unsupported damages, admin, debt collector and interest, which the Defendant submits have not actually been incurred at all. The claim flows from an alleged (already hugely inflated) contractual parking charge of £100 but the sum on the claim form is more than two times this sum. The Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

10. The Claimant is a serial offender on this regard and must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC LocumsUKEAT/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.

10.1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, where the sparse cut & paste particulars are embarrassing and give rise to no recognisable claim in law.

11. It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Defendant to spend hours on their defence against a vexatious litigant who then discontinues. Research shows that this Claimant is regularly observed as being in pursuit of default judgments to use as an aggressive form of debt collection, with no intention of paying for or attending the majority of hearings.

12. 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. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date:



If anyone could help then that would be great.
I feel I need to keep it short and simple so a lot of the cut and paste may have to come out?
I am basing it on three things- the bays are not actual bays/I was only there 5 to 10 minutes/signs are small and useless.
And an extra dig- mentioning that it is a 'trap' space.

thanks.

Frozenfire

Hi Guys,

Anything to add or delete?
This damn thing has come at the wrong time for my anxiety

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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

Le_Kirk

You have the signage and landowner authority, which is good. You need to go through your defence and remove any "I" or "my" as defences are written in the third person. You might also want to search the forum for Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy with a comment at post # 14 of that thread by Coupon-mad which you should add to your point about additional charges.

Frozenfire

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You have the signage and landowner authority, which is good. You need to go through your defence and remove any "I" or "my" as defences are written in the third person. You might also want to search the forum for Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy with a comment at post # 14 of that thread by Coupon-mad which you should add to your point about additional charges.

Thank you Le_Kirk, how does this look now-

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx xxx in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

Signage
4. The Claimant's signage located on the way in to Whittle Square is based just off a round-a-bout and is displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, any attempt to read the tiny font while driving would almost certainy cause a road traffic incident.
4.1 The closest signage to where the vehicle xxxx xxx was parked is located approximately 10 metres away, and at the time the PCN was issued, the sign was obstructed by a large van, as evident on one of the claimants photographs.
One of the other signs is 10 metres in the opposite direction to the entrance to the gym where I was going.
Both signs are very small with a very small font.

4.2 The signange states "Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay"
These 'bays' do not have any distinguishing features to suggest they are any different to where xxxx xxx is parked,which is adjacent to said bays.

4.3 It is only with careful and thorough investigation upon receiving the PCN that the defendant has been able to discover and understand that Whittle Square is actually private land with strict parking rules.
This discovery is made by walking the whole area by foot and spending 15 minutes approaching and reading one of the signs- not something you can do while driving past looking for a parking 'bay'.
It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

Grace period
5. The defendant had stopped in an unmarked area for approximately 10 minutes in order to sign in to David Lloyd Gym and ask the manager where the safest place to park is, as large heavy glass was needed to be carried in to the gym and installed in the pool area.
The defendant has evidence of said works carried out on the same day as PCN was issued.
The car park at the rear of the property is for gym members with code access, it was only after signing in that the defendant proceeded to park at the rear, after directions from the gym manager.

5.1 The claimant is put to strict proof that they had provided a sufficient grace period as per section 13 of the 'BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice' in order for the defendant to read any obvious signs near the vehicle or sufficient time to move the vehicle in relation to 5.


No standing or landowner authority
6. 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 under defined parameters and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
No legitimate interest or commercial justification
7. Vehicle xxxx xxx had stopped in an area where numerous vehicles park everyday (due to being an unmarked area and not obstructing vehicles or pedestrians).
A quick approximate calculation considering the defendants stay time of approximatley 10 minutes would mean that the claimant could be issuing nearly 100 PCN'S in this one spot in an 8 hour working day.
In 1 year this would equate to over £1.5 Million pounds.
The conclusion is that this is probably an area purposely set up to 'trap' innocent victims in to paying over inflated claims.

7.1 It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing defendant for a hundredfold penalty, for the ordinary and reasonable conduct explained in this defence.

7.2 The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.


Unconscionable sum claimed - double recovery - abuse of process
8. 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 is well aware of their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

8.1 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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating:
''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...''

8.2 That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates in many cases of his nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

8.3 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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

8.4 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.

9. It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Defendant to spend hours on their defence against a vexatious litigant who then discontinues. Research shows that this Claimant is regularly observed as being in pursuit of default judgments to use as an aggressive form of debt collection, with no intention of paying for or attending the majority of hearings.

10. 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.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date:

Frozenfire

I will be submitting next week so any changes you would recommend, please do so quickly

Many thanks for you time and effort on this, very much appreciated.
My anxiety attacks have made me almost pay up several times but I have held in there, If I can do this then it shows that many many people can follow suit against these fraudsters.

Frozenfire

And should I add this and maybe merge with grace period section?

''Both the BPA and IPC Codes of Practice specify grace periods before and after the parking period commences. Sometimes motorists are issued parking charges that do not take this into account. If this is the case, then the parking company are not adhering to the KADOE contract which requires adherence to the CoP. If they have not adhered, then there would be no reasonable cause, and therefore a DPA breach.''

Frozenfire

Anything to add or alter? Anyone?
Welcome anything that may help.

Thanks.