Gladstones via Horizon Parking PCN claim

Le_Kirk

You've now got the usual points that are to be found in any of the pre-written defence examples in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and you should now search for the thread posted by beamerguy about Abuse of Process and use the comment on post # 14 of that thread by Coupon-mad as support for your point 8. Since, when you find that comment, it won't be numbered (could fit anywhere in other poster's defences) you will need to make sure each and every paragraph is numbered. Also when you see this bit: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

......... change it to this: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and here the defendant quotes from the cases cited:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

my BOLD for emphasis to you, not to be emboldened in your defence.

Littlefishy

Le_Kirk wrote: »

You've now got the usual points that are to be found in any of the pre-written defence examples in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and you should now search for the thread posted by beamerguy about Abuse of Process and use the comment on post # 14 of that thread by Coupon-mad as support for your point 8. Since, when you find that comment, it won't be numbered (could fit anywhere in other poster's defences) you will need to make sure each and every paragraph is numbered. Also when you see this bit: -
......... change it to this: -
my BOLD for emphasis to you, not to be emboldened in your defence.

Final Draft with suggested addition, please can you have a read through, check numbering etc and confirm if you think this is suitable, precise and ready to submit.

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 XXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay that is apparently allocated to XXXX of XXXX.

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 £70.00 figure that appears to have been plucked out of thin air, for which no calculation or valid 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. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) Only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) Resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

10. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

11. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

12. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

13. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

14. 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, £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.

15. 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 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 and here the defendant quotes from the cases cited:

16. 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 Parking Eye 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...''

17. 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.

18. 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, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

19. 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

Littlefishy

#Page 3 - Post 1

Hello all,

I am now at the next stage. My defence has been submitted and the N180 DQ has been received.

A letter attached to the N180 DQ form states that 'The claimant has told the court they wish to proceed with the claim but they have elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably without the need for further court intervention'

The N180 form has been answered by the claimants representatives as follows;

1) They agree to the case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service
2) They agree that the small claims track is appropriate

Any advice on what my next step would be given the response from the claimant?

KeithP

If that's a copy of the Claimant's DQ that they have sent you then you file it with everything else.

If it's a DQ from the CCBC then you need to complete it as described in bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

Slightly disappointing to see this post as I had hoped that items 7 and 8 in the list in post #17 above had anticipated that question.

Coupon-mad

Why do so many posters keep asking about their DQ when this is covered in the sticky?

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Why do so many posters keep asking about their DQ when this is covered in the sticky?

......... and in every one of KeithP's posts where he gives deadlines and detailed tailored advice on the process.