Gladstones LBC help to prepare

Coupon-mad

Can I check, is this definitely about Whittle Square, as the defence you copied is, and says so?

It's just your account doesn't sound like that same place but I don't have local knowledge about whether it has a David Lloyd Gym or not:

My vehicle was parked xxx xxxx xxxxx x xx
It was there roughly 5 to 10 minutes for driver to sign in and ask the manager where to park to carry out work, the work involved would mean carrying heavy and dangerous items so naturally needed to park as close as possible. Driver had assumed the rear car park was for members with a key-code or card to gain entry.
There was a van parked in front of mine and consequently- was covering up the only parking sign that was nearby.(This is evident on one of their photos)
Apparently My vehicle had "parked within a restricted area" and should of used the 'clearly marked bays'(The 'bays' were full)
The bays are not clearly marked, just different coloured paving blocks.
My vehicle is parked to the right of said bays. Not blocking the road, not blocking other cars and not blocking pedestrians.
Cars park here all the time, so obviously a 'trap'
There is a sign on the way in to this area of retail park, the only thing possible to gather from this when driving passed is that you can park here, as the only thing big enough to read is the big green 'P'

I would be searching for defence Jopson and adding in something about that case and having to stop near premises to load/unload heavy items.

I'd also search for PCM predatory grace period defence and copy from one like that.

Or PCM Watchdog predatory defence might be good keywords, as you will see!

Frozenfire

Coupon mad- yes, whittle square.
I will amend to include jopson and will also search for the others.

Many thanks for this.

Frozenfire

Ok,

I have updated the defence to include what coupon mad mentions.
I have also added changed other bits to include the extra signs that I didn't even know were there.

I'm hoping this is my last draft but, as always, look forward to your input.

many thanks.

Frozenfire

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 and driver 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 approximately 20 metres in the opposite direction to the entrance to the gym where I was going.
Another sign is on the opposite side of the road, approximately 10 metres away and another is around the corner facing the opposite direction, and also approximately 10 metres away.

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.

5.2 The claimant may argue that I parked outside of the 'marked' bays for loading. I refer to the case of!Jopson!v!Homeguard![2016] B9GF0A9E (Exhibit RB/010), where on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

5.3 The Jopson Appeal case is a persuasive Appeal decision, where District Judge Charles Harris QC, found that the parking firm had acted unreasonably when issuing a parking charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats who parked in front of the communal entrance to unload furniture, as this was the only accessible place to do so. Home Guard Services had sued Miss Jopson in the small claims court and won. Miss Jopson successfully appealed the case, her solicitor arguing that the charge was incompatible with the terms of the lease which gives residents (and their visitors and delivery drivers etc.) easements and specific rights which supersede any parking firm signs. The Judge found that Home Guard Services’ regulations - set out on wordy, unclear, badly-drafted signs like in this case - disregarded these rights and the Claimant was ordered to pay costs of some £2,000. The Judge was also at pains to point out that loading/unloading is not parking and such a case can be fully distinguished from Beavis, which did not apply.


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.
The defendandt has photos to prove this exact area is parked on frequently.

7.1 It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing the 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:

Redx

add Judge Giddins recent addition to Jones-Evans , as well as Grand & Taylor , the more the merrier

Frozenfire

Hi all,

So I have sent my defence as per newbies. Deadline was tomorrow but I am very busy so done it today.
I have amended and formatting errors, typos and also changed a few words from 'parked' to 'stopped' as part of my defence is based on unloading grace period.
I also added some important info about one of the signs (after visiting the area again).

Fingers crossed.
Thank you again for your help, very much appreciated.
Win or lose, I have tried.

Cheers.

Frozenfire

Evening all.

I now have notice of allocation to small claims court.
I am a little confused with dates, the letter states I have to send copies of documents I intend to rely on By 29th january. And I have to send my WS by 5th Feb.
Now, the only documents I need are photos that go with my WS.
Only other documents are reference to previous cases which I don't think I need to print off.
So do I send my photos on 29 Jan?

Also, Do I need a skeleton arguement?
Can I just rely on my WS and my already submitted defense?
To me it is a basic court case in small claims and seems obvious to me what the outcome is based upon my already submitted defence.
Also, can I email Gladstones my documents? Recent threads say yes but when Gladstones seny me DQ email, the bottom of the email states
"Gladstones Solicitors Limited do not accept service of documents by email."

Any help is much appreciated. I have time this Monday to do my WS.

Regards.

Umkomaas

I'd phone the court on Monday to get categoric confirmation, our guess is no better than yours.

You don't need a skeleton argument for a straightforward small claim, just take with you your own crib sheet of the main points you'd like the Judge to consider, but the chances of you being given any time to do so is remote.

Also, can I email Gladstones my documents? Recent threads say yes but when Gladstones seny me DQ email, the bottom of the email states
"Gladstones Solicitors Limited do not accept service of documents by email."

Documents should be served on the claimant/solicitors by Royal Mail, unless otherwise agreed. I can't see anything equivocal in what Gladstones are saying there, do you?

Frozenfire

Will do.
Many thanks.

Frozenfire

Hi all.

Very busy day printing and things.
Here is my WS that I will send off this week. Pretty much the same as user 'Glosandy' case.
Anything I should change?

thanks in advance.


IN THE COUNTY COURT AT xxxx

CLAIM No. xxxx


Between:

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (Claimant)

- and -

Mr xxxx(Defendant)

__________________________________________________ __________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT
__________________________________________________ __________________________________

1. Preliminary

1.1 I, xxxx am the Defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1.2 Attached to this statement is a bundle of documents marked E1, E2 etc., to which I will refer to.

1.3 The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

1.4 The claim refers to a parking incident involving vehicle xxxx on xxxx at the location of Whittle Square, Gloucester.

1.5 I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, and this is my Witness Statement in support of my Defence already submitted.

2. Sequence of Events

2.1 On xxxx I stopped my vehicle xxxx outside the David Lloyd Health Club in Whittle Square, Gloucester.

2.2 The reason for stopping outside the Gym and as close as possible was due to health and safety reasons, I was attending the Gym to carry out an emergency glass replacement and needed to get as close as possible to the entrance to unload a large glass unit.

2.3 Upon entering the Gym, I had to wait to speak to the Manager, she explained that the rear car park is now accessible without a key card as the electric rising barrier gates have been removed. (The last time I used the Gym it had electric barriers). So after signing in, I went back out to the van and proceeded to move the van to the rear car park.
I was no longer than 10 minutes so no Grace period was allowed as per section 13 of the 'BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice' see Exhibit E0.
There are also no visible time stamps on the claimants photos.
See Exhibit E1 that shows the receipt for the works carried out on said date.

2.4 The vehicle was located off the highway in an area commonly used for parking. The vehicle was in no way contravening any Highway Regulations, and had stopped safely without obstructing or obscuring any vehicular traffic. As such, I believe that I had stopped my vehicle in an area responsibly and legitimately within a designated parking bay.

2.5 A few weeks after this occurred, I started to receive correspondence from the Claimant and their Representatives demanding monies for the alleged parking infringement of “Parked Within a Restricted Area”, but I believe the facts and images prove that the area in question is not restricted at all.

2.6 The distinctly threatening and aggressive correspondence continued as the Claimant has pursued an entirely unreasonable and vexatious process designed to deny any reasonable opportunity for explanation or appeal process, which has led to the Court action now. I respectfully suggest that parking companies using the Small Claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demand against motorists is not something the Court should be seen to support.

3 The Parking Bay

3.1 On entering Whittle Square, I looked for a suitable available parking space, as close to the entrance of the David Lloyd Health Club as I could. I identified the area in question as suitable for stopping based on the points listed below.

3.2 The bay in question is clearly not part of the highway, and is distinguished by the use of distinct surface materials. See Exhibit E2

3.3 There is no raised kerb to restrict access to this area from the highway. See Exhibit E2

3.4 The bay in question appears to be clearly part of the existing “parking zone” at the front of the David Lloyd Health Club, by means of the use of identical surface materials. See Exhibit E4 and E5

3.6 The area in question is in common usage as a parking bay. During visits to the area in the past, I have always seen vehicles using this area as a legitimate parking bay. Here is one example, See Exhibit E6

4. Inadequate Signage

4.1 On entering Whittle Square, I did not notice any signage from my vehicle clearly indicating the parking restrictions. I visited the site at a later date and the sign on entering Whittle square is set on a roundabout, so not readable from a vehicle. Said sign is also very faded.
(See Exhibit E8)
A key factor in the case of “ParkingEye vs Beavis” was that the relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature” and that “the charge is prominently displayed in large letters and at frequent intervals within it”.

4.2 Due to the direction my van was facing I did not encounter any parking restriction signs, see Exhibit E7 and E9 for van facing direction and lack of signs on the walk to the Entrance.

4.3 At a later date, I did notice that the signage does state that “Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay”. My normal understanding of a “marked bay” would be the use of white painted lines to indicate the bay, as in the adjacent area. See Exhibit E10

In this case, the “bays” appear to be defined using contrast paving, but the use of the same colour and style of paving for the whole of this area, as indicated in Exhibit E4 and E5, did not in any way suggest to me that I had stopped in anything other than a parking bay.

4.3 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage ‘should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’ The text on the signage, particularly that which refers to ‘contractual terms’ and a ‘parking charge’ is very small. This, coupled with the fact that the sign is mounted at least 7ft off the ground on a roundabout, makes it impossible to read from a vehicle.

4.4 The IPC guidelines (14) state ‘You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance’. The fact that there is no signage around this area and that it is known that other motorists use this area as a legitimate parking bay (see Exhibit E6), I would question that the Claimant is deliberately obscuring this fact to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices solely for financial gain.

5 Declaration

I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signature

Date