Parking fine gladstone solicitors

Coupon-mad

horizon parking limited

OK, I heard they were starting claims.

So as this is about parking on what looked like a public road, and without a permit it would be impossible for you to comply or breach permit terms, search the forum for:

defence road permit void impossibility

or

defence PACE v Lengyel

Change the ADVANCED search to 'SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS' and you will see some defences to copy from, that are exactly like your case.

Quentin

Irrespective of whether you have used your real name as your forum name (get MSE to change it if you have), you need to edit the unique identifying info you have posted in your draft defence


The ppcs monitor here and can use posts in your thread against you in Court

Dan_Barns

Hi all, first of all I am extremely grateful for everyone helping me with this. I have done my defence and think I’m ready to send. Can you tell me if I should add/remove anything please

Do I send this to the court as an email or post and do I send to anyone else.

Also I have added in about having a permit for the road as I can obtain a visitors pass from my friend I was visiting, shall I include or leave out ?

In The County Court

CLAIM No:

BETWEEN:

HORIZON PARKING LIMITED (Claimant)

and

(Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle registration, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date and had a valid permit to be parked on ....

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. 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. They merely state that vehicles must not park in the no parking zones, giving no definition of where the no parking zones are nor indicating which zones are suitable parking zones as there are no road markings set out.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. Furthermore there is no signage upon the entrance. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

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 has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery. On the 10th of June 2019 in case F0DP201T, 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: District Judge Taylor 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 judgement 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"

9. 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.

Le_Kirk

See post # 8 by KeithP for how to submit the defence.

You've got the facts (you parked with a permit), you've got the signage, the proprietary interest in the land (although you misspelled proprietary - to be fair it is wrong in the NEWBIE example) and the abuse of process, that's normally OK.

Dan_Barns

So shall I add anything to this defence? I am submitting it later today

Dan_Barns

Any input would be greatly appreciated:)

waamo

As it's based on Bargepoles defence and contains abuse of process it should be fine.

Dan_Barns

The main question is do I include that I had a permit? As there are visitors permits for parking and I could obtain one from my friend who lives there. Or do I leave it out and say I didn’t have a permit

NeilCr

Dan_Barns wrote: »

The main question is do I include that I had a permit? As there are visitors permits for parking and I could obtain one from my friend who lives there. Or do I leave it out and say I didn’t have a permit

If you had a permit and displayed it - say so

If you didn't have a permit then don't say you did

StubbornGoat

DB - Go back to your post (#9) submitted on 12th Aug 19 and edit it. You MUST remove your registration number and replace it with XXXXXXX on this forum. (Obviously when you come to submit the actual defence, you will use your actual reg number).

Also listen to what KeithP has said about changing your username. You're currently a sitting duck for the claimant who just needs to search for your name on here, read your thread and know exactly how you plan to defend your case (and rebut everything before you have a chance)

SG