Gladstones via Horizon Parking PCN claim

Littlefishy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Are you saying you would always have paid and displayed? Then maybe the wrong VRN was put in and you will see their hand/all photos they took, if you send them a SAR (but don't miss the defence deadline too).

The driver usually parks in the APCOA car park which is joined onto the Horizon car park. and they pay the APCOA parking fees via the APCOA connect line, however... The day this event occurred, the driver must have parked in a Horizon space and not noticed, unfortunately on that day the APCOA connect line wasn't working either.

Littlefishy

Redx wrote: »

I suspect they paid apcoa because most of the parking round there seems to be apcoa, but they should have paid horizon

Possibly confusing poor signage or advertising ?

Very close to what occurred other than the fact that on this particular day, the APCOA line wasn't operating properly and the car was as per the photos in a Horizon parking spot which is easily confused for an APCOA parking spot.

I have tried to update the thread as per your help, is it more suitable now or does it require more tweaking Redx?

Littlefishy

The_Deep wrote: »

AFAICS from google street view, Signal Point car park is, (or was in May 2017), managed by APCOA. It certainly looks as though it belongs to GWR as it is next to the track.

OP, nine times out of ten these tickets these Gladstones claims are scams so consider complaining 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.

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Thanks Deep, I will submit a complaint as I wouldn't want others to suffer from this in the future, I can't believe the way this is handled by certain claimant.

Littlefishy

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

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

Hi Keith,

The issue date is 6th August 2019 and yes, it did come from the County Court Business Center in Northampton.

Redx

Littlefishy wrote: »

The driver usually parks in the APOCA car park which is joined onto the Horizon car park. and they pay the APOCA parking fees via the APOCA connect line, however... The day this event occurred, the driver must have parked in a Horizon space and not noticed, unfortunately on that day the APOCA connect line wasn't working either.

It's APCOA, not Apoca

Your edits for post 1 and thread title seem ok now

KeithP

Littlefishy wrote: »

The issue date is 6th August 2019 and yes, it did come from the County Court Business Center in Northampton.

With a Claim Issue Date of 6th August, you have until Tuesday 27th 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 [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL]. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 9th September 2019 to file your Defence.

That's 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 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 [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread[/URL] to find out exactly what to do with it.

Littlefishy

Hello guys,

Firstly, I have updated the original post to provide a better picture of what happened instead of having a panic attack regarding the claim and providing no real information that could assist others in similar circumstances.

furthermore, I have been doing some research and have now utilized the newbies generic defence template but tweaked it to suit my requirements, please see below, I also have a question that follows.

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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the XX/XX/XXXX in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXX at XXXX resulting in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) due to the vehicle being parked on private land and in breach of the terms and conditions which are stipulated on signage within the car park.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the driver/keeper of the vehicle and that the Driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. There is no evidence to support that the driver agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days. 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. 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 the operating hours of the car park and the associated fees, giving no indication as to which bays are allocated to whom. The bays are easily confused with the neighboring car park owned by XXXX who also houses its own marked parking bays on the exact same plot of land.


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, 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 proprietary 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, 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 £70. The claim includes an additional £96.06 a figure that appears to have been plucked out of thin air, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. It appears that the Claimant’s representatives, XXX, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim.

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.


My question are as follows; (Having received the SAR)

They provided, Photos of the PCN on the windscreen, photos of the car parked in the bay, a photo of signage and photos of Vehicles that paid by their app/phone and a copy of the original PCN and NTK. PCN issued 12th April, NTK issued 13th march.

1. They apparently issued a windscreen PCN as provided by photo evidence, I didn't receive it. Can these things fall off or is it possible it was taken off the vehicle, poorly applied or disturbed by bad weather?
2. The vehicle was observed for 12 minutes before the PCN was issued. (Is that legal I cant find information relating to this but I have heard that they had to observe the vehicle for 30 minutes)
3. The signage is not sufficiently lit at night so its not visible thus it is easily confusing to believe the parking belonged to the neighbouring car park. (Can i use this later and leave it out of my defense?)
4. I regularly pay at the neighbouring car park and as per usual attempted to pay via phone at the neighboring car park due to not knowing they were separate car parks, it was dark, i couldn't see any signage to imply otherwise.(Again can i use this later or does this need to be in my defence)
5. I spoke to the local council for planning permission ref the signage they display. The council said they do not have planning permission but most likely display signage under advertisement planning/permissions. (Baffled what that means, anyone know?)

Any and all help is very appreciated.

I am trying to keep it precise and simple but not give away everything I will use as a defence should it go further. I just want to ensure I can defend in this way or if i need to include more given my questions above.

Le_Kirk

Your point 2 rather gives away the game doesn't it, you are stating as fact that you parked somewhere in breach of the terms and conditions. Shouldn't it be that the allegations are ...... If you have a permit to park there or attempted to pay via PDT or phone app, you could add that to point 2 because the whole thrust of your defence is to REFUTE what the POC states, make them prove their case don't do the job for them.

It is amazing how may posts we see where NTDs (windscreen tickets) fall off the windscreen because posters have never seen the NTD but when they submit a SAR, they are supplied with a photo of the car with a windscreen ticket. It's like the mysterious post situation when people don't receive the original NTK or reminder because they are "lost in the post."

Where did you hear about the observation period being 30 minutes? Maybe you need to go back to that source and ask for more information.

Signage should feature in your defence, particularly if it is badly displayed, too small or unlit. You can supply photos at Witness Statement (WS) stage.

If there was confusion about which car park you were in or which pay-by-phone app you should have used, this also forms part of your defence.

Apparently courts are not interested in planning permission for signs (or at least that it the general consensus on the forum) and you might have to report the PPC to the local council for "lack of advertising consent" as it is a criminal offence, although it seems like the council have shot down that argument already - worth finding out though.

If the claim is asking for a spurious £60 added to it, search the forum for "abuse of process" thread by beamerguy and find the comment added to it by Coupon-mad at post # 14 of that thread and use that in your extended defence.

Littlefishy

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Your point 2 rather gives away the game doesn't it, you are stating as fact that you parked somewhere in breach of the terms and conditions. Shouldn't it be that the allegations are ...... If you have a permit to park there or attempted to pay via PDT or phone app, you could add that to point 2 because the whole thrust of your defence is to REFUTE what the POC states, make them prove their case don't do the job for them.

It is amazing how may posts we see where NTDs (windscreen tickets) fall off the windscreen because posters have never seen the NTD but when they submit a SAR, they are supplied with a photo of the car with a windscreen ticket. It's like the mysterious post situation when people don't receive the original NTK or reminder because they are "lost in the post."

Where did you hear about the observation period being 30 minutes? Maybe you need to go back to that source and ask for more information.

Signage should feature in your defence, particularly if it is badly displayed, too small or unlit. You can supply photos at Witness Statement (WS) stage.

If there was confusion about which car park you were in or which pay-by-phone app you should have used, this also forms part of your defence.

Apparently courts are not interested in planning permission for signs (or at least that it the general consensus on the forum) and you might have to report the PPC to the local council for "lack of advertising consent" as it is a criminal offence, although it seems like the council have shot down that argument already - worth finding out though.

If the claim is asking for a spurious £60 added to it, search the forum for "abuse of process" thread by beamerguy and find the comment added to it by Coupon-mad at post # 14 of that thread and use that in your extended defence.

Payment was attempted by phone but obviously this payment would have gone to the neighbouring car park provider as I was in a bay in the wrong car park (Not that I knew at the time), I am unsure if that reason is of any use?

Do you think fact 2 would be better like so...

2. The facts are that the vehicle, (Registration Here), of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay apparently allocated to (Company Name) at (Location here).

Thanks for the help btw! I really appreciate it.

I will tweak the defense with the advice as they are valid points which would of course assist my defence in being as accurate/specific as it can be without the assistance of a solicitor.

Littlefishy

# Page 2 - Post 1

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 (here) , of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay that is apparently allocated to (Company here) of (Location here)

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the driver/keeper of the vehicle and that the Driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices in hopes of making a profit from someone/anyone. There is no evidence to support that the driver agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days. 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. 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 the operating hours of the car park and the associated fees, giving no indication as to which bays are allocated to whom. The bays are easily confused with the neighbouring car park owned by (Company here) who also houses its own marked parking spaces on the exact same plot of land with the intent of both operators clearly providing parking for Swindon Train Station commuters yet, failing to make it easily identifiable that this is two separate car parks owned by different companies.

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, this would be even more difficult at night due to the lack of lighting making it physically impossible to locate and read any signage. 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 proprietary 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, 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 £70. The claim includes an additional £96.06 a figure that appears to have been plucked out of thin air, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. It appears that the Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim as the costs being claimed haven’t actually been incurred by the Claimant, previous examples led to Gladstone claims being repeatedly dismissed due to abuse of process.

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.

Name here etc etc

Do you think this is ready to submit?