ES Parking Enforcement/Gladstones

KeithP

edwj2001 wrote: »

Claims were issued on the the 7th October, so considered served on the 12th October. I will have to acknowledge in the next few days.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th October, you have until Monday 28th October 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 11th November 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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.

edwj2001

Hi all,

I have cobbled together my proposed defence from reading this site and some other research. I would really appreciate some input on how I can improve it. I haven't mentioned the fact that we didn't receive any of the early PCN notifications due to them going to an old address (as it was out fault we hadn't changed the vehicle address with DVLA), but let me know if you think i should build this in somehow.

Thanks in advance


It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the claimant has no cause for action against the Defendant on the following grounds.

1. The court is invited to take note that the claimant has issued four claims, numbers xxxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxxx, xxxxxx, against the defendant on the same date (xxxxxxx), and with substantially identical particulars. It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the defendant potentially liable for four instances of issues fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees, and runs contrary to the overriding objective of Civil Procedure Rules 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the claimant.

2. The Defendant has lived nearby to the place of the alleged breach since January 20xx and parked without issue in the parking bays in question on multiple occasions over a 40 month period up until the point of the alleged breach of terms. New parking restrictions were put in place without sufficient notification or signage which led to the defendant parking in the bays on the dates in question unaware of any alleged infringement. Given the change in parking restrictions, the signage displayed was insufficient and are 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. It is therefore denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

3. The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “Permit Holders Only”. The signage is of a “forbidding” nature as it is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]. In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner. It is submitted that in this case that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. If the Defendant on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser and not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant.

4.The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant’s intention was not to offer a genuine contract to park and that the main purpose was to deter the undisclosed conduct by attempting to enforce a penalty. The Defendant refers the court to 3YK50188 : Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty (Luton County Court appeal) that was decided by Mr. Recorder Gibson QC in almost identical words (21 February 2014)

5. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.

6. 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 per PCN (£200 in total for this claim). This claim includes an additional £60 per PCN (£120 in total for this claim), added by the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors. I submit these amounts have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, which were provided to me without calculation, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules regarding double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.

7. 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 dismiss this Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

Coupon-mad

You said to us:

we have now received five separate court claims which have the seven alleged offences on them.

So, have they cancelled one of them or is one aimed at you instead of your partner? Make sure the right named person defends (not you)!

1. The court is invited to take note that the claimant has issued four claims, numbers xxxxxx, xxxxx, xxxxxx, xxxxxx, against the defendant on the same date (xxxxxxx), and with substantially identical particulars.

Has the right person done the AOS? Are all claims to your partner?

Did all the claim forms come to your correct address now, so there is nothing needing to be put right as regards the address the Court thinks the D lives at?

The D needs to add a point that it was Council controlled and cite the IPC CoP about putting up extra signs for any NEW restriction (search the right IPC CoP version relating to the parking dates, for the section about new rules needing extra warning signs to alert people familiar with the old lack of restrictions.

also received a copy of the TRO from the council for the road in question that I am struggling to interpret.

Show us a link to that TRO please, and if you CANNOT POST LINKS YET(?) as a newbie, just change http to hxxp and add a gap in the URL to get around that rule.

edwj2001

Thank you for your response.

We received 5 LBC's but strangely we have only received four county court claims to date. The one we have not received was the first alleged incident chronologically, so we were worried that it had gone to an old address but we spoke to Gladstone's and they said it hadn't yet been processed by them, so we are expecting it at some point but haven't yet received it. All of the claims so far have come to the correct address and in my partners name and we have completed the AOS in my partners name. Will try and post the TRO's now.

Le_Kirk

Defences are written in the Third Person and you have at lease one "I" in there. Also you could make more of the Abuse of Process by searching the forum for the thread by beamerguy and the comment at post # 14 of that thread by Coupon-mad and use all of it in your defence.

edwj2001

Thanks Le_Kirk, I will make the amendments as you suggested.

I have attached the TROs below. The parking pays in question are on the plan on page 11 of the first attachment. They are specifically on Hulme Hall Road on the corner just above where the '23m' is marked on the plan.

dropbox. com/ s/9 5v ju 4 i9ji7 z ccq /Hu lme% 20 Hal l%20 Road%2 0TR O. pd f?dl=0

edwj2001

Sorry having real problems getting the link embedded as it won't allow me to as I am classed as a newbie. The link to the file with lots of spaces is above. You will need to add h t t p s : / / w w w . to the above and obviously remove the spaces.

nosferatu1001

No, dont do that
Just change Http to Hxxp.
Make it easier on us.

edwj2001

Sorry, i tried that earlier but it wouldn't work even with the x's and multiple spaces. Any other suggestions on how to get it on other than what i have done above?

nosferatu1001

Dont use dropbox for a start. Fewer people will download random files from there
Use an IMAGE HOSTING SITE.