UKPCM Gladstones PCN

Smeg_Head

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

 2. The facts of the matter are the signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. Due to inadequate notice of the land being private, and/or any parking charge, and/or any added sums, the driver(s) did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge'. Positioned on the inside of a bend and on the opposite side of the road, the one small sign on the wrong side of the entrance is not within easy noticeable view of vehicles entering the area, and further compounded by being obscured from view by any vehicles exiting the area.

 3. The signage size, lettering and font size are too small to be seen easily and noticed from within a vehicle.

 4. The sign states to park in a “designated area / parking space” but does not determine what a designated area or parking space is. There are some poor markings but with similar contrast and in colour, they do not make individual bays obvious. There is a particular yellow hatched area which stipulates no parking; but that yellow marked area in being there implies areas with parking forbidden will be marked similarly by yellow hatchings, anywhere without that marking should be allowable.

 5. The claimant specified the vehicle was “Parking On Access Road / Roadway”, but the sign does not mention any fault with parking on an Access Road or the Roadway, and the space is surrounded by bollards on three sides so neither is it an Access road.

 6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the CPRs, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'.

 8. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue..... and so forth from Post 14 of AoP thread

Smeg_Head

Hi, just wondering if anyone has had a chance to peruse the last version, I want to email it this afternoon if I can? Any glaring mistakes? Am I ok to copy and paste word for word the text from  point 6  through 14 of  Beamerguys AOP post here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p2

beamerguy

Smeg_Head said:

Hi, just wondering if anyone has had a chance to peruse the last version, I want to email it this afternoon if I can? Any glaring mistakes? Am I ok to copy and paste word for word the text from  point 6  through 14 of  Beamerguys AOP post here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p2

You just need coupon-mad's text in post # 14 .  You can sign it off as a statement of truth because it is 100% true and correct

Le_Kirk

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest............

Add that word above.  If you are going to add the Abuse of Process points then you don't need your paragraph 7, else it will be duplication.  However, if you read the comment by Coupon-mad, you will see it is recommended to keep the defence short just mention the added amounts briefly and then add the whole of the abuse of process to your witness statement.  In the defence just add to your  words along the lines of : -

The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the NTK.  The claim includes an additional £60, for which no explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

Smeg_Head

The defence went in and last week we received a copy of their N180 form from Gladstones, but we haven't received one from the court; should we have done?

Coupon-mad

Surely KeithP's response earlier on in this thread, tells you about this?

Smeg_Head

Coupon-mad said:

Surely KeithP's response earlier on in this thread, tells you about this?

It did, sorry

Smeg_Head

Hi, emailed the DQ on Thursday last week but it's not showing as being received? MCOL shows DQ sent on the 3rd, but nothing since? It was emailed to CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk on the 12th and there was an automatic reply acknowledgement, should I send by post as well?

Redx

they are probably behind but if you feel the need to post it as well, do so , twice is better than zero

KeithP

As you have the automatic response acknowledging receipt, I would say that's good enough.
But your choice.