Clam form from Gladstone Solicitors

Itakerisk

Version 8:


Dear All, Here's my revised defence (Version : 8) as per my ability,



DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that Defendant, the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration <Reg No> was not the driver of the vehicle when it was parked on the material date in XXXX industrial park.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. 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. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

5. 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.

6. The PCN letter arrived when 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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"

15. 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.''

16. 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.

17. 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

Le_Kirk

Looking good now.

Itakerisk

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Looking good now.

Ah brilliant, I will go ahead and send this as my defence Many thanks once again, I will keep you all posted with the latest as we go along :cool:

Itakerisk

I have recieved email from claimant solicitor that Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further court intervention.


Should i go for mediation ?


PS : I have not recieved direct questionnaire, I spoke to court and they said that Claimant has not advised them on how to proceed.

waamo

Mediation is a complete waste of time and effort.

beamerguy

Itakerisk wrote: »

I have recieved email from claimant solicitor that Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further court intervention.


Should i go for mediation ?


PS : I have not recieved direct questionnaire, I spoke to court and they said that Claimant has not advised them on how to proceed.

YOU DECLINE MEDIATION IF YOU WANT TO WIN.
You might as well be dealing with an unknown chap down the road

Could be that Gladstones are not sure they will win, that is normally the reason.
Maybe they cannot explain their abuse of process and don't want a spanking by the judge

Le_Kirk

Itakerisk wrote: »

Should i go for mediation ?

Mediation Scenario: -

Mediator "Mr Itakerisk, how much do you want to pay?
Mr Itakerisk "Nothing"
Mediator "Claimant, how much are you willing to accept?"
Claimant "£160"
Mediator "End of mediation with no resolution"

Itakerisk

Thanks all - consensus here is not to mediate so i shall do that same and reply back - Thanks but no thanks

Itakerisk

Dear All, I have received a letter from Court that the court has considered the statements of case and directions questionnaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track, it also has other information about judge would not accept any witness statement that's not shared with the claimant etc..

any advice at this stage ?, It doesn't have the hearing date though,

Please advice ...

Le_Kirk

1) Wait for the hearing date
2) Prepare your witness statement (WS) ready for (1)
3) When you receive (1) send WS to court and claimant.
4) Relax