Letter Before Claim from Gladstones

GarageHermit

I should clarify, I sent a copy of a council tax bill as form of identification as I no longer own the car but they wanted photographic ID too, I said it was irrelevant as they have no idea what I look like.

I have emailed my mp, awaiting response but will probably be a while now due to Christmas.

Thanks 'The Deep' that point is already part of my draft defense as I've seen lots of others have had success with it.

GarageHermit

That's good to hear, what were the particulars of your case?

Le_Kirk

GarageHermit wrote: »

I should clarify, I sent a copy of a council tax bill as form of identification as I no longer own the car but they wanted photographic ID too, I said it was irrelevant as they have no idea what I look like.

In this case a complaint to the ICO is in order. Agree re photo ID, I thought this was on a list of "things" that could not be requested but cannot remember where I read it.

GarageHermit

Here is my first attempt at a defence, A little last minute I admit but I have been reading it over and over and changing little bits here and there. It is made up of points that I liked from other good defences as well as some of my own that I thought were relevant. Please have a read and let me know what you think.


I am the Defendant, and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim, or implied in Pre-action correspondence.

Preliminary Matters.

1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:
B1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.


2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest. On the 20th September 2016 a poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’ On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were inefficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.




Statement of Defence

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

2. The terms on the Claimant's signage 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. The single sign is positioned on a wall adjacent to one of the spaces, facing away from the entrance to the car park. Meaning not only is it not visible on approach to the car park but it can easily be obscured by just a single parked car. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. I also refer to the IPC Code of Practice Schedule 1, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'.
No terms or signage were seen at the time my vehicle was parked because the sign was obstructed by a high sided car parked in front of it. I was issued a PCN within 5 minutes of entering the car park, this is in breach on the IPC Code of Practice section 13 consideration and grace periods on private land stating that “Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land”. The elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.
Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.

3. The PCN was issued to an occupied car without any attempt to talk to me whilst was sat in the car or to ask me to move. I refer to case Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012) in which it was agreed that a private parking firm was responsible for mitigating any loss. The parking operative had every opportunity to tell me in person to move on, but failed to do so.
The PCN was also issued by a member of the public using UKCPM’s ‘self ticketing’ scheme, the very same scheme that has since been suspended by the IPC following a BBC investigation. I would argue that a member of the public that downloaded an APP has not received the required training to meet section 27 of the IPC Code of Practice. UKCPM’s App also offered a monetary incentive of £10 per ticket issued which directly breaches section 28 of the IPC Code of Practice, which reads:
28 Incentive Schemes
28.1 Operators may use incentive schemes to motivate staff and improve productivity. However, operators must not use an incentive scheme which focuses solely on the volume of Parking Charges issued.
28.2 To avoid simply encouraging the issue of a high volume of Parking Charges, operators should employ schemes which encourage a high standard of work.
28.3 Where incentive schemes are employed, Operators should keep in mind that it is they that are ultimately responsible for improperly issued Parking Charges and that there may be ramifications should members of their staff (or Self-ticketers) issue Parking Charges fraudulently.

4. I submit that the IAS decision should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). There is no scrutiny board, unlike POPLA. The IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice.
The example sign produced by UKCPM in their evidence to the 'appeals service' known as the 'IAS' was false and does not match the sign found in the car park at St Augustines way, South Wootton, King’s Lynn.
The IAS is a trading name of the IPC, whose Directors are Will Hurley and John Davies. These Directors, having overseen my IAS appeal being unfairly refused, have now filed this claim because they are also the directors of Gladstones solicitors. It is submitted that this chain of events is founded upon a conflict of interest and operates in breach of the CPUTRs and is contrary to good faith.

5. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence. Further, there is no ‘legitimate interest’ served by immediate ticketing of a car on arrival, with no attempt to mitigate loss or draw terms to the attention of drivers, or allow any period of grace to obtain any permit or even read the signs.

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, to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

7. 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are also an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event. 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.
In Claim number F0DP201T District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019, 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 case cited: "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 not 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"
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.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Ok so as it is a defence you should not have 'I submit', no ''I'', ''me'', ''we'' or ''my'/our'' in a defence. Should be all written in the third person.

Remove this entire load of waffle; this is really old and muddles up TWO different meanings of the word 'contract' and is a mess:

Preliminary Matters.

1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:
B1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.


2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest. On the 20th September 2016 a poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’ On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were inefficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.

Remove:

Statement of

You have been looking at some very old stuff.

Read the defence I wrote the other week for basher52 on his thread; it's an example about multiple PCNs where the Defendant was not the driver, so needs alterations to the first 5 or 6 points, but it shows how to set it out.

The_Deep

Ok so as it is a defence you should not have 'I submit', no ''I'', ''me'', ''we'' or ''my'/our'' in a defence. Should be all written in the third person.


Do judges really care about this stuff nowadays?

Coupon-mad

I know, but let's just get Judges on side from the word go, is my philosophy.

GarageHermit

Thanks for you assistance Coupon-Mad. however I did send it in yesterday not wanting to leave it any later incase I had the deadline slightly wrong. yes some of them were older defences but still thought they seemed relevant, and also read about it all having to be 3rd person after I'd sent it, hopefully I haven't messed it up too badly.

From what I understand now I need to wait for the questionnaire, then start witness statement and include my photos of the car park as evidence. Anything else?

Coupon-mad

An important thing for a UKPCM case is to read the Jack Chapman threads so you are ready to do what they all did! There is a very good one where someone won the other day in court and the Judge remarked about the Jack Chapman signature issue!

Search for his name (he is not a forum poster, he's the UKCPM phantom signatory!).

GarageHermit

Hello again
It's been a while but this case now has a date set for a telephone hearing, so it's time to start my witness statement and evidence. Having re-read the NEWBIES thread, I have more questions.

What is the significance of the Beavis sign? is it an example of a good sign that ppc's should be replicating or is it an example of poor signage to show unreadable small print?

Also I have read the WS that was linked in the thread to get some inspiration, it often refers to the claimants WS but I have not received anything from the claimant, does this typically get sent to me or do I have to request it from them or the court?

Thanks again for all your advice