Gladstones and old address - 1 unknown CCJ, 1 unknown Claim

duckieb

I have submitted the above witness statement and draft order along with my N244 paperwork for the set-aside. I will keep you all updated. Thank you all for your help - I am very grateful.

I would now be grateful for more advice regarding the first claim and the defence statement, which I have until October 9th to file. PCM Ltd sent me all the previous letters in response to my SAR (thank you Coupon for alerting me that it could be emailed rather than posted). The situation is: Gladstone's sent a claim letter to my old address about 3 tickets from 2017. The dates on the claim letter are: 13/7/17, 17/7/17, 17/7/17. It's in a place that I have never driven to and I was at work on those days. I|t is however my car and others are insured on it. I did not see any prev letters as all went to my old address.
The SAR has shown photographic evidence of my car there, as well as a sign (with tiny lettering re terms and conditions). The dates of the tickets are 13/7/17, 17/7/17, 18/7/17. I have no idea how Gladstone's managed to get even the dates wrong on the claim form - this is so uprofessional?!

My main defence currently is that I was not the driver and they cannot prove I was and everything went to my old address. Does anything change since they have photographic evidence? I will post my latest defence staterment below and would be grateful for advice.

duckieb

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Parking Control Management Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant was at work elsewhere on the day in question and as such cannot have been the driver of the vehicle.

4. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

4(i) the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

4(ii) 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.

5. This claim form has not been served at my current address and I became aware of the claim incidentally. I understand that this Claim was served at an OLD ADDRESS (XXXXXXX). However, I moved to a new address in January 2017. In support of this I can provide confirmation from XXXXXXX County Council showing my updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.

5(i). I have also never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim.

5(ii). The court papers contain no details of the alleged incident and I do not know what the Default Judgement relates to.


5(iii). I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

5(iv). On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim.


6. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

6(i). A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.



7. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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 Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

8. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. 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. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

9. In addition, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence of the alleged contravention. The Particulars of Claim lists the location as ‘Clement Danes & Holborn House -W12’ with no road name, which returns no clear results when searched on Google. The Defendant has made attempts to identify this location however with the lack of specific information, and the refusal to respond with evidence, the Defendant has been unable to ascertain where the parking event was.

10. Should UK Car Park Management Ltd provide evidence to substantiate their claim then it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN. Therefore, 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.

11. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £689.22 is an unenforceable penalty clause.

12. With no POFA and no law of agency to rely on, the Claimant has no cause of action.

13. In addition, the amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable. The Claimant’s representative has artificially inflated the value of the claim from XX to XX. The legal costs are not justified additionally it would have been factored within the additional £60 charge per PCN thus claiming again would be considered double charging creating financial gain.

13(i). 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 £417.66 total, for 'contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest' which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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:
''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...''

20. 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.

21. 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.

In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.



Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
•

Name
Signature
Date
•

Ralph-y

have you read through post #2 of the newbies thread .... its a walk though / advice on court cases?


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou


Ralph:cool:

Coupon-mad

5(ii) is not right, if this one is 'just' a current claim to defend and not a set aside of a default judgment?

Gladstone's sent a claim letter to my old address about 3 tickets from 2017. The dates on the claim letter are: 13/7/17, 17/7/17, 17/7/17. It's in a place that I have never driven to and I was at work on those days. I|t is however my car and others are insured on it.

OK, that last date mistake might help strike out one of the PCNs pretty quickly at the hearing and you have no obligation to point out the Claimant's solicitor's error.

So don't, not just yet!

Anyway, it's very possible that PCM could hold you liable under the POFA as I think they used POFA wording in 2017 on their NTKs and they will have used the DVLA address for you, so that would be deemed 'served'.

Unless you are saying that the location has inadequate notice of the parking terms and charge? And/or that there was no relevant contract or obligation upon the driver in this case, for some reason?

What sort of car park and if it was residential, can you find the signs on Google Streetview? Do they say the terms relate to permit holders only? Was the driver a resident, as far as you probably know?

duckieb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

5(ii) is not right, if this one is 'just' a current claim to defend and not a set aside of a default judgment?

Anyway, it's very possible that PCM could hold you liable under the POFA as I think they used POFA wording in 2017 on their NTKs and they will have used the DVLA address for you, so that would be deemed 'served'.

Unless you are saying that the location has inadequate notice of the parking terms and charge? And/or that there was no relevant contract or obligation upon the driver in this case, for some reason?

What sort of car park and if it was residential, can you find the signs on Google Streetview? Do they say the terms relate to permit holders only? Was the driver a resident, as far as you probably know?

Thank you for the reply. Correct, it is a current claim and not a set-aside. Can I then change that to saying that I was unable to challenge previous notice or correspondence?

Should I refer to the fact that only one ticket is on 17/7/17 in my defence statement, or just not mention it?

So unfortunately they did use POFA wording in the NTK. In which case I shall have to remove that section? Does that mean I don't really have any defence? I have no idea what car park it was as it doesn't bring up much when I google, and I don't recognise the place. The only thing I can think it might be is a hospital carpark as it seems to be in the right area for a hospital my husband was doing some research/work in at the time. He however rarely drove except very occasionally to pick up something (by occasionally I mean literally 2 or 3 times at best) so did not have a permit. So I think it must be a hospital carpark. And I think unfortunately what happened was that my husband may have been driving, stopped to pick up something relating to his work, and then left very quickly (there was a very brief period where he had to pick up and drop off a number of things and used my car).

There is a picture of the signs in their case evidence report. In large lettering it says 'Private Land, Terms & Conditions, Enforcement in Operation, Parking Charge £100'. In between there is very small lettering and I can just about make out something about parking in a marked bay with a permit. It is not the easiest to read.

I am not sure where to go from here or what angle to take and would be grateful for advice.

Le_Kirk

If this is a current claim and that defence is on its way to CCBC, then you can add another instance of a case being thrown out at Caernarfon court. Check beamerguy's thread again and you will find that Coupon-mad has updated her comment at post # 14 on that thread.

Coupon-mad

unfortunately they did use POFA wording in the NTK. In which case I shall have to remove that section? Does that mean I don't really have any defence?

Never. These are always defendable. PCM always use POFA wording and we almost always beat them on other stuff like dodgy signs/no grace period/predatory ticketing.

Sounds like you need to reassure yourself by reading plenty of PCM claim threads, so search the forum for those keywords, settle down and read at least ten or twelve of the first search results.

If you want to read wins in court to see how these Gladstones claims are typically seen off by ordinary non-legal people, search for the words:

another one bites the dust

You will soon have focus and realise why we are so confident!

duckieb

Thank you all. I've spent hours reading and now feel a lot more confident. the SAR also came through for both this one and the CCJ. Gladstones sent me all their letters before claim, and unfortunately it seems they sent one or two amongst them to my new address (only the letters before claim but none of the earlier notices or the claim itself). I have never seen these letters and wonder whether we threw them out as possible junk mail. I think this means I will be unlikely to have the set-aside granted, and am also concerned about its impact on my defence for this claim.

This is my latest draft of the defence for the claim. Should I take points 5 and 6 out as my old address argument is no longer valid? And any points which refer to POFA due to them using the wording? The whole defence seems a bit overlong. I would be very grateful for any advice.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Parking Control Management Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE



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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant was at work elsewhere on the day in question and as such cannot have been the driver of the vehicle.

4. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

4(i) the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

4(ii) 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.

5. This claim form has not been served at my current address and I became aware of the claim incidentally. I understand that this Claim was served at an OLD ADDRESS (XXXXXXX). However, I moved to a new address in January 2017. In support of this I can provide confirmation from XXXXXXX County Council showing my updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.

5(i). I have also not seen any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim.

5(ii). The court papers contain no details of the alleged incident and I do not know what the claim relates to.

6. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant would have needed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

6(i). A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the claim, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.

7. The Claimant has failed to provide the Defendant in a 'letter before claim', with essential information including details of what the alleged breach was, any photographs taken, what time it occurred and for how long, and proof that a breach actually occurred. This amounts to a failure to comply with Practice Direction 6 (a). This claim is being made over 2 years after the alleged breach took place, and after all this time without adherence to Practice Direction 6. The expectations of the court outlined in Practice Direction 3 have not been met.

8. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not specify what are the terms breached by the driver of the vehicle. As such, the Claim fails to meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies what the terms were and how they were breached.

9. 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.

10. Due to the sparseness of the Particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. 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. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

11. In addition, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence of the alleged contravention. The Particulars of Claim lists the location as ‘Clement Danes & Holborn House -W12’ with no road name, which returns no clear results when searched on Google. The Defendant has made attempts to identify this location however with the lack of specific information, the Defendant has been unable to ascertain where the parking event was.

12. Should Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd provide evidence to substantiate their claim then it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN. Therefore, 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.

12. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £689.22 is an unenforceable penalty clause.

13. 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.

14. The claim includes interest charge but does not include dates used for calculation. As such, this is in breach of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (2)


15. 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. This claim includes an additional £417.66 total, for 'contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest' which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

16. Overall the costs on the claim are disproportionate and are an abuse of process. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.


19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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:

The Judge stated:-
''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...''

23. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

24. 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.

25. 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 attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief


Name
Signature
Date

Le_Kirk

5. This claim form has not been served at my current address and I became aware of the claim incidentally. I understand that this Claim was served at an OLD ADDRESS (XXXXXXX). However, I moved to a new address in January 2017. In support of this I can provide confirmation from XXXXXXX County Council showing my updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.

Defences are written in the third person, therefore not "I" but "the Defendant". check for other instances of using "I".

5. This claim form has not been served at [STRIKE]my[/STRIKE] the Defendant's current address and [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] the Defendant became aware of the claim incidentally. [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] The Defendant understands that this Claim was served at an OLD ADDRESS (XXXXXXX). However, [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] the Defendant moved to a new address in January 2017. In support of this [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] the Defendant can provide confirmation from XXXXXXX County Council showing [STRIKE]my[/STRIKE] updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.

ALL paragraphs require a number so that when the claim is heard you can, for example, direct the judge to "paragraph 5" not "the unnumbered paragraph at the end of paragraph 5"

Good to see the Abuse of Process but for your information and to strengthen your defence, search for the thread by beamerguy again and you will see that Coupon-mad has added another case at Caernarfon and if you search the forum in the past few days another case has been stuck out by DJ Taylor at Southampton.

duckieb

Thanks very much Le_Kirk. Amended so it is all in the third person and I've updated the Abuse of Process section.

Should I take out or cut down paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 due to their use of PoFA wording on their notices, plus the fact that Gladstone's sent one letter to my new address (which I never saw) and will have evidence of that?

And should I include that they have charged for 2 tickets on the same day, which is also inflating costs?

Would be grateful for advice regarding the points above and also anything else in the defence - streamlining, cutting out and getting it ready to submit. Thank you all again.