Clam form from Gladstone Solicitors

Coupon-mad

I had "was" there because my Dad had sold the vehicle, is it better ?

Nope, try again!

KeithP

No, still not good grammar - in my opinion.

How about:

The facts are that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration <Reg No>, but was not the driver.

And in para 3, change "the Private Parking Company" to "the Claimant".

Le_Kirk

Itakerisk wrote: »

The facts are that the vehicle, registration <Reg No>, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper was not the driver.

I had "was" there because my Dad had sold the vehicle, is it better ?

It is confusing; you know what you want to say and I can see what that is BUT the judge needs to be able to see it clearly upon (skim) reading it. Have somebody read it out loud to you and see if you can spot the error OR better still read it out loud to somebody and see if they understand it.

Coupon-mad

I have been chuckling about how a vehicle can drive a vehicle!

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I have been chuckling about how a vehicle can drive a vehicle!

Yep, me too! Trouble is, when you have it in your head what you want to say AND you have written it AND it reads perfectly OK to you, it's difficult to spot the error.

Itakerisk

Thanks Coupan-mad, KeithP and Le-Kirk...



So i go with this as corrected by KeithP.



[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]DEFENCE[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]________________________________________

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

2. [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]The facts are that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration <Reg No>, but was not the driver.[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]3. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Claimant[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

4. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]5. The PCN letter arrived [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]w[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]hen the defendant was out of country, however defendant’s son made multiple contacts to the claimant to explain that the person driving the car on that day was not the registered keeper of the vehicle but all calls are handled by automated answering system, the call charge at 7p per minute and only provides options to pay, No human interaction made it very complicated for defendant to discuss the claim.

6. 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 are stuck on wall very high that are out of sight.

7. 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.

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 £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.[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]9[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. T[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]he 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 and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. [/FONT]

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]1[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]0[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. 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.

1[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]1[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. 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.

1[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]2[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. 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.

1[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]3[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. 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 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. 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 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…''[/FONT]

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]1[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]4[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. 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"[/FONT]
[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]
1[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]5[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies)on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that Distract Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

1[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]6[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. 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.

1[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]7[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]. 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[/FONT][/FONT]
p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; }a:link { }

Itakerisk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I have been chuckling about how a vehicle can drive a vehicle!

Oh dear, that really makes me look dumb in my own eyes

Le_Kirk

Itakerisk wrote: »

Oh dear, that really makes me look dumb in my own eyes

Maybe, but you made us larf!

KeithP

I really think you need another sentence in there near the beginning telling the Court what this claim is all about.

Look at those concise defences by Bargepole linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread for inspiration.

Itakerisk

KeithP wrote: »

I really think you need another sentence in there near the beginning telling the Court what this claim is all about.

Look at those concise defences by Bargepole linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread for inspiration.

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]I have been reading Bargepole posts however I can only think of merging points 2 and 3 as such ?[/FONT]

[FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]2. [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]The facts are that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration <Reg No>, but was not the driver [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]of the vehicle on that occasion, therefore t[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]he defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the [/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif]Claimant[/FONT][FONT=Liberation Serif, serif] has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.[/FONT]