COUNTY COURT LETTER- Gladstones/Minster Baywatch

jason_bourne

Hello, thanks for taking the time to read this thread.

The Story...

Vehicle was parked at Meadowhall Shopping Centre, Sheffield on in February 2019.
Car was in a disabled bay and claimant says there was no blue badge displayed

A windscreen PCN was attached and the Registered keeper has ignored all letters up to this point.
(county court letter received with issue date 04/09/2019).
Registered keeper has submitted the AOS within 14 days with the intention of defending all of the claim.

£100 for PCN, 55 contractual costs, legal representative costs 50, court fee 25 - total £235.58

Particulars of the claim:

"The driver of the vehicle with the registration XXXXX parked in breach of the signage (the 'Contract') at Sheffield Meadowhall customer car park, on 23/02/19 thus incurring the parking charge the 'PCN. The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle." Despite demands being made, the Defendeant has failed to settle their outstanding liability."


Further to the story...

Drove round for a bit and couldn't find any spaces so parked in the disabled bay that was furthest from the entrance to the shopping centre and there were probably at least 40 other disabled bays still between the end one parked in and where the entrance was.
To be clear I don't abuse disabled parking space in general but there were a huge amount of spaces so was 99% sure I wouldn't inconvenience anyone and was only going to 1 shop so would be quick.
I went in and spent about 60 quid in Primark (cash unfortunately no receipt anymore) and returned about 25mins later to find a PCN on the windscreen.
I ignored the first letter that came through (which showed a picture of my car but in the picture the car did not have the PCN stuck on- don't know if this is relevant or not?)
and all subsequent letters that came through. I have never signed for anything they have sent.

The claimant is Minster Baywatch and it is Gladstone's Solicitors.

Meadowhall is a free car park up to 3 hours I think. Knowing it was free I didn't expect to get a ticket for using one of their spaces. They do have signs up as up as you drive in but didn't read them as I was driving and while walking in to the centre I was on a phone call.

Please advise what you feel is the best line of defence for this case and I will get my draft posted asap. I have I believe until Monday 30th September to file my defence.


Many thanks in advance.

The_Deep

£100 fine, 55 contractual costs, legal rep costs 50, court fee 25 - total £235.58

It s not a fine. and the amount they are asking for is considerably more than the law allows, read this.

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

If you are not disabled and abused the car park you might struggle if this went to court. My advice would be to try to settle with them. They are not entitled to any contractual costs or legal costs. But a judge is very likely to find for them if this goes to court and,with fees, ou could be looking at £175-200 for your hubris.

beamerguy

Gladstones are SCAMMING YOU

£100 fine, 55 contractual costs, legal rep costs 50, court fee 25 - total £235.58

Normally it's £60, not £55

However, this is ABUSE OF PROCESS BY GLADSTONES

POFA2012, THE LAW says this ....
This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4

READ ABOUT ABUSE OF PROCESS

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

The court must ask them on what authority do they have to circumvent the law and the courts own double recovery rules

jason_bourne

So should I file my defence and simply ask the case to be struck out on 'abuse of process' ?
and quote the relevant other cases?

thank you

Coupon-mad

No, not at all, most courts will not do this.

You will struggle to defend parking in a disabled bay if they have good photos, but at least you might minimise the costs by getting the imaginary and disallowed (but ONLY if you make that case) £55 contractual costs and 'legal rep' costs of £50 removed.

KeithP

jason_bourne wrote: »

County court letter received with issue date 04/09/2019.
I have submitted my AOS within 14 days with the intention of defending all of the claim.

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th September, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 7th October 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

jason_bourne

Should I be asking for evidence from them and claim this County Court letter is the first I've heard of it?
Then I know what photos etc. they will be using? so I can prepare a defence?

KeithP

jason_bourne wrote: »

Should I claim this County Court letter is the first I've heard of it?

Not a good idea.

Google perjury.

jason_bourne

So I should go down the route of 'poor parking notices' about getting a charge for using disabled bay?
and hope it is reduced due to extenuating circumstances? Then maybe get the extra 55quid charge taken off and £50 legal representative costs?

jason_bourne

OK, So here is my first attempt at my defence:

Please comment. Thanks very much




IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

MINSTER BAYAWATCH LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay of the car park of Meadowhall Shopping Centre.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXX was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) XXXX. 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. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

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 £55, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. This appears to be a clear 'Abuse of Process'.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

and hope it is reduced due to extenuating circumstances?

No, that never happens. And you have no extenuating circs.

You might win if you can show the signs & lines are faded/unclear or no signs are near that bay at all.

If you lose then you would be looking at damage limitation by arguing that the £55 and £50 are false sums, deemed unrecoverable in the light of:

(a) the ceiling in the Trade Body Code of Practice (max £100 ceiling for parking charges) and
(b) the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 (max sum is that on the Notice to Keeper) and
(c) ParkingEye v Beavis paragraphs 98 and 198, where the Supreme Court made it clear that these 'template letter' dependant parking enforcement business models work with reliance upon a hugely inflated 'charge' that already more than comfortably covers the costs of this operation and this case. A parking firm cannot add more sums for the costs/letters, because they are already paid for in the 'parking charge' and to say otherwise is an abuse of process.