PRIVATE PARKING - Intention to proceed (Gladstone)

pc678807

Hi

Out if the blue I received a Claim form from Gladstones on behalf of parking control management back in July of this year.

They claimed I parked on private land over 3 years ago now (2.8.2016). There was no ticket left on the van and the first I knew about it was the claim form above. I work as a gas engineer.

I replied to gladstones and parking control management requesting all the information via recorded delivery including land owner info, ticket etc. But they didn't reply. Then I sent an email within a templated letter via email to the court. But Gladstones have now sent an intention to proceed letter along with a mediation request.

I have tried looking through the threads. But I am finding it confusing and cannot find what to do.

I think I have a defence in that there was no ticket left on the vehicle. The vehicle is not in my name. The parking area was not clearly defined at the top of a public road.

Thank you in advance for any help. The mediation must be sudmitted by the 16th October 2019

beamerguy

Welcome to the world of Gladstones incompetence and ignorance.

This is a game of dealing with dodgy unprofessional legals

Mediation is a waste of time and indicates that Gladstones are unsure of their case....... don't do it if you want to win.

Did Gladstones send a LBC before issuing a claim

Has Gladstones added a fake £60 to their claim ?

Le_Kirk

Is the claim form from Northampton CCBC and does it have an issue date? If it is a real claim form then you need to read the NEWBIE sticky post #2 and follow the guide to MCOL to see how to complete the AoS, then read up on some of the 17 pre-written defence examples.

Coupon-mad

I think I have a defence in that there was no ticket left on the vehicle. The vehicle is not in my name. The parking area was not clearly defined at the top of a public road.

You've already done your defence.

Who is the Defendant named on that July claim, you? If so why are you telling us that the vehicle is not in your name, it makes no difference if you admitted to driving, as long as the Defendant on that claim form is you then it's your case.

What was the defence you put in, to this July claim? Exact words of defence.

pc678807

beamerguy wrote: »

Welcome to the world of Gladstones incompetence and ignorance.

This is a game of dealing with dodgy unprofessional legals

Mediation is a waste of time and indicates that Gladstones are unsure of their case....... don't do it if you want to win.

Did Gladstones send a LBC before issuing a claim

Has Gladstones added a fake £60 to their claim ?

Hi and thanks for the reply.

I dont think they did send a LBC but as it was so long ago I cant be positive. I did request all that information via recorded delivery, with no reply.

On the claim form the amounts are £196.96 + 25 court fee + 50 legal representation ... so far .

pc678807

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Is the claim form from Northampton CCBC and does it have an issue date? If it is a real claim form then you need to read the NEWBIE sticky post #2 and follow the guide to MCOL to see how to complete the AoS, then read up on some of the 17 pre-written defence examples.

Hi and thanks again for the reply.

Yes the claim form is from Northampton CCBC and the issue date is 22 July 2019.

I have been looking for the newbie sticky post 2 but I am useless at navigating through the threads. Would really appreciate a link or instructions please.

pc678807

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You've already done your defence.

Who is the Defendant named on that July claim, you? If so why are you telling us that the vehicle is not in your name, it makes no difference if you admitted to driving, as long as the Defendant on that claim form is you then it's your case.

What was the defence you put in, to this July claim? Exact words of defence.

Hi. Thanks again for getting back to me so quickly. Any help is greatly appreciated.

I dont think I admitted to driving and used a template for my defence which is below.

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant PC HEATING LTD denies that the Claimant
isentitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration *******, of which the
Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse
evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material
date on an unmarked kerb not on any yellow lines nor causing an
obstruction, within the claimed jurisdiction of Parking control
LTD at Park Place location.
3. It is denied that a 'Parking charge notice' ('PCN') was affixed to the car within the compliant
duration given in the Particulars. It is reasonable to conclude,
from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was
posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'PCN'
was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a
document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The
Claimant is put to strict proof.
4. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms
occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed
about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.
5. The Particulars of Claim state that 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 the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms
were breached.
6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, which have already ben requested from the Claimant over 7 days ago 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.
7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage setting out various terms
on the ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim and consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked ‘private
land’ parking spaces located amongst those forming a much larger residential car park, in a sufficiently clear manner which would
be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. There separate signages at differing locations within all stating
different particulars. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where differing users vehicles are or are not allowed to park, no
contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.
8. Even if the Court is minded to
consider that the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.
9. & 10. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by
a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to
that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye
Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.
11. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
12. 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.
13. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide
that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or
alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in
paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the
other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.
14. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied,
or by conduct.
15. 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.
16. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs plus interest of £36.96 to pursue an alleged
£100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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 £100.17.
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.

Regards

KeithP

You would be wise to remove you name, company name and vehicle registration number from that post.

The parking companies trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up and can try and use your posts and thread against you.

Le_Kirk

To clear up any confusion then: -
You received a claim form from Northampton CCBC
You completed the AoS
You submitted your defence (since posted here)
You have not yet had your DQ from CCBC
You have received a letter from Gladstones saying they will proceed and suggesting mediation.

Do not accept mediation - since you want to pay £0 and they want £ALL mediation is going to fall at the first hurdle.
Have you had a copy of the claimant's DQ?
Have you had any letters from CCBC saying the case has been allocated to the small claims track?
Can you log-in to your MCOL account and see the progress of the claim?

pc678807

Le_Kirk wrote: »

To clear up any confusion then: -
You received a claim form from Northampton CCBC
You completed the AoS
You submitted your defence (since posted here)
You have not yet had your DQ from CCBC
You have received a letter from Gladstones saying they will proceed and suggesting mediation.

Do not accept mediation - since you want to pay £0 and they want £ALL mediation is going to fall at the first hurdle.
Have you had a copy of the claimant's DQ?
Have you had any letters from CCBC saying the case has been allocated to the small claims track?
Can you log-in to your MCOL account and see the progress of the claim?

HI. Thanks for your help with this.

Am I right in thinking the DQ is the Directions questionnaire. If yes then I have.

Yes. I have had a letter saying it has been allocated to the small claims track.

Just logged into MCOL and latest is DQ filed by claimant 29.9.2019.

I have to reply by the 16th October ??

1505grandad

"1. The Defendant ................................ LTD denies that the Claimant
isentitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all."

"5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle."

Are you sure that the Claim is against the Limited Company and that the PoC state "driver"?