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

Le_Kirk

If you are defending as Keeper and were not the driver, I would leave in. Is this the defence for one PCN? If you have another PCN with a different reference number AND you have received a claim form and submitted the AoS, you should submit a separate defence using the same defence points but with a different reference number and then supply a covering letter with the defences asking that they be combined in the interests of keeping down cost and court time.

duckieb

I am defending as Keeper, so will leave in in that case. There are 3 PCNs on the same claim form, and the claim has the same reference so I am doing this defence for all 3 of them (in any case they are all at the same place and I have no idea what any of them refer to so it would be the same defence). On the claim form, the dates of the 3 PCNs are - 13/7, 17/7 and 17/7. PCM(UK) sent me details in response to my SAR and it seems Gladstone's have made a mistake on the claim form and put 17/7 twice, as I think the third was 18/7. I have not however corrected them and am unsure whether I should refer to the fact that they are charging me for 2 tickets on the same day in my defence

Le_Kirk

What do the particulars of claim say? Is it one, two or three different dates but with same reference number? AFAIK it is one reference to one defence but IANAL.

[Deleted User]

Sounds like you have one claim here which alleges three breaches of contract, two of which occurred on 17/7. Therefore that is the claim you must respond to. The claim form is the finalised fine-tuned case. Once proceedings are issued the letters of claim are less relevant, indeed the whole point of the protocols is that cases will be refined before court proceedings start.

Could you have been issued a PCN twice on the same day? Also that may be helpful IF the signage refers to a fee for parking breaches in any 24 hrs period - it would instantly restrict them to 2 charges not 3.

Signage is key. Each case is different because signs will vary.

Don't assume all DJs will apply PoFA rigidly or that your opponent won't try anything. They're generally not fully qualified lawyers, not paid well and in my experience can be disingenuous to try and secure a result.

duckieb

Particulars of the claim list 3 dates (13/7, 17/7, 17/7). There is one claim number on the form for all, and Gladstone's seem to have one reference number for all 3. Or is there a different reference I should be looking for?

Johnersh - I will look again at the signs. However I think Gladstone's have essentially made a mistake on the claim form, as the three breaches of contract appear to be 13th, 17th and 18th of July based on the previous letters which PCM sent in response to my SAR. Gladstone's, in all their professionalism, have written 17th twice by accident it seems. So I will look again at the signs but I have otherwise not referred to this in the defence as I don't know how to bring it up.

Coupon-mad

Gladstone's, in all their professionalism, have written 17th twice by accident it seems. So I will look again at the signs but I have otherwise not referred to this in the defence as I don't know how to bring it up.

Well you do not have to point out the other side's error but you do need to deny that any contraventions in fact occurred, and specifically, it is denied that the Claimant can produce evidence of two contraventions in one day.

So put that as a standalone point.

You need to leave #5 and #6 in (but changing ''I'' to ''the Defendant'') because you said they did post the claim to an old address despite having a newer one they'd traced for you and had used that for the LBC (am I right?).

duckieb

Coupon - yes, they posted the claim to the old address despite having found a new address for you to which they sent 1 letter before claim.
I am not sure how best to word the point about 2 contraventions in one day. I have included it as point 5(iii) - I took your wording essentially but think I've incorporated it in a clumsy/wrong way. Should I keep it as a standalone point entirely rather than part of 5?
This is my updated defence - thank you all so much for your help so far:


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 the Defendant’s current address and the Defendant became aware of the claim incidentally. The Defendant understands that this Claim was served at an OLD ADDRESS (XXXXXXX). However, the Defendant moved to a new address in January 2017. In support of this, the Defendant can provide confirmation from XXXXXXX County Council showing the updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.

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

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

5(iii). The court papers refer to three alleged PCNs, two of which occur on the same day. The Defendant denies all contraventions, and that the Claimant can provide evidence for two incidents on the same day.

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.

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


14. 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.

15. 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)


16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.


20. It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. Many informed Court Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor 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. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

24. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgment for these three example cases 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...''

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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

1505grandad

There are still the first person "I" left in - paras 6 at least.

The full name of claimant in the heading should include "(UK)" (as presumably stated in Court docs)

Le_Kirk

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

5(iii). The court papers refer to three alleged PCNs, two of which occur on the same day. The Defendant denies all contraventions, and that the Claimant can provide evidence for two incidents on the same day.

I would combine these two points as they seem to be saying the same thing, maybe: -

5(ii). The court papers refer to three alleged PCNs but contain no details of the alleged incident(s), two of which apparently occurred on the same day. The Defendant denies all alleged contraventions. The Claimant is put to strict proof of two incidents on the same day.

It is recommended (especially by Bargepole, who produced some of the example defences in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2) that simple paragraph numbering is employed, ergo, no sub-paragraphs.

duckieb

Oh I see what you mean; I didn't realise that applied to sub-paragraphs. Ok I have amended as such, thank you. And thank you 1505grandad, that one slipped my eye (sleep deprivation has made me sloppy). I have amended as such. This is the latest version. Is a 31 point defence too long? I am not sure what to cut out.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Parking Control Management (UK) 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.

5. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

6. 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.

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

8. The Defendant has also not seen any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and thus was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim.

9. The court papers refer to three alleged PCNs but contain no details of the alleged incident(s), two of which apparently occurred on the same day. The Defendant denies all alleged contraventions. The Claimant is put to strict proof of two incidents on the same day.
10. 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. The Defendant submits 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

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


18. 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.

19. 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)


20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.


24. It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. Many informed Court Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor 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. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

28. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgment for these three example cases 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...''

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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