Claim Form from Gladtones re Contractual PCN from G24

sensahuma

nosferatu1001 said:

2) No, that is not the schedule of YOUR COSTS. You need to do a search on this - its your time spent to date. 
3) Supplementary WS - do a search by post then! Yes, CEC16 has the "abuse of process" add ons you need. 

Re Costs schedule, the only document that shows the breakup of total amount is the County Court Claims forms. The line items are:

***************************************************

 1. Amount Claimed: £173.09, comprising of:

   1.1  CLAIMANT costs for PCN: £100

    1.2  Contratual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN TnCs: £60

     1.3 Statutory Interest of £13.09 at 8.00% per annum

2. Court Fee: £25

3. Legal rep's costs: £50

Grand Total: £248.09

***************************************************

Re Supplementary WS, the defendant had included 'Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous (Abuse of Process)' as Section-7 in the defence (it can be seen on Page-1 of this thread).

Is the suggestion that as part of WS, the defendant either includes Section-7 from their defence, OR, text by coupon_mad (which is largely similar) in CEC16's thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75922070#Comment_75922070

Apologies, but the defendant is still unclear about the term 'Supplementary WS', does the Abuse of Process have to be shared separately to the main WS; can it not be part of the same WS which basically would cover the following points:

1. That the PCN was prematurely issued considering it was a free parking zone for the patrons of the store and   that NO overstay occurred, given that it would certainly have taken more than 2 minutes on arrival to drive in/up/round and finding a space, then parked (and read the terms if they were visible) thereby just leaving less than 10 minutes after the expiry of the allowed parking time, and that is fully covered in IPC CoP (Part-B Section #15) section on the mandatory 'grace period'.

2. Credit card statement proving the defendant was customer of the store that day.

3. Highlighting the fact the Claimant's WS is taking recourse to old entry/exit pictures to the parking space of an earlier store (i.e. Store A banners) as opposed to Store-B, considering the defendant had visited Store-B, not A.

4. Adding the Abuse of Process as discussed above, unless this needs to go separately, which the defendant thinks is being referred to as Supplementary WS?

beamerguy

1.2  Contratual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN TnCs: £60
What a load of nonsensical rubbish Gladstones quote ?
I think that Gladstones are now suffering from dementia / Alzheimer's
What have the courts said to Gladstones .....
GLADSTONES: .... The rep sent by Gladstones admitted to the judge that the fake add-ons WERE FALSE This is now what any case can turn on if the FALSE add-ons are applied
POST # 64
Hertford county court
CASE NUMBER F1GF9J4G
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76756261#Comment_76756261"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6017649/county-court-claim-private-pcn-from-uk-cpm/p1">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6017649/county-court-claim-private-pcn-from-uk-cpm/p1

GLADSTONES: .... The rep sent by Gladstones admitted to the judge that the fake add-ons WERE FALSE This is now what any case can turn on if the FALSE add-ons are applied
POST # 64
Hertford county court
CASE NUMBER F1GF9J4G
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76756261#Comment_76756261"nofollow" href="https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/" title="Link: https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/">https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/

sensahuma

Final Evidence from the Defendant follows; it had to split into Parts due to characters/post limitation. Please note that Point#3 of the Defendant's challenge, i.e. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous (Abuse of Process) @Coupon-mad . Experts, kindly review and provide feedback, if any. Thanks

Part-1 of WS

******************************************************************************************

IN THE PETERBOROUGH COMBINED COURT CENTRE        CLAIM NO: xxxxx                                                                                                                                                                  

BETWEEN:

G24 Limited (Claimant)

-and-

Mr. BOND (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

 

 

l, Mr. BOND, OF yyyyyyy WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

 

A) The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'. Moreover, the Defendant disputes the £248.09 (Total Amount Claimed) as per the Costs Schedule provided in the County Court Claims Form, as follows:

 

 1. Amount Claimed: £173.09, comprising of:

   1.1 CLAIMANT costs for PCN: £100

   1.2 Contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN T&Cs: £60

   1.3 Statutory Interest of £13.09 at 8.00% per annum

 

2. Court Fee: £25

3. Legal rep's costs: £50

 

4. Total Amount Claimed (1) + (2) + (3): £248.09

 

 

The facts of the case are as follows:

 

B.1) The Defendant visited an xxxx store in Cambridge (Address: yyyyyy) on xx/zz/2018 for shopping; the store had rooftop parking, FREE for all customers of the store. The Defendant later found out (i.e. after receiving the PCN) that the parking for customers was free for 60 mins).

 

B.2) After having shopped at the store, the Defendant drove out of the store premises. There was no notice/PCN/ticket issued at that time.

 

B.3) Subsequently the Claimant issued a £100 ‘Contractual PCN’ with the issue date as (zz/xx/18). A blurry photographic evidence of the car entering and exiting the store premises was provided, it is alleged that the Defendant exceed the maximum duration of stay permitted by 12 minutes.

 

B.4) On receiving the first notice (i.e. the above PCN) by post, the Defendant went back to the xxxx store and discussed the matter with the Store Manager. After verifying the shopping receipt, the store manager made a photocopy of the receipt and the PCN notice in order to get the PCN cancelled by contacting the third party ‘G24 Ltd.’. The Defendant was told by the Store Manager that the said third party G24 Ltd., also the Claimant in this matter, was responsible for managing the store’s parking area. The Store Manager was confident that since the Defendant had shopped at the store, the PCN would be cancelled.

 

B.5) Few days after the above events the store went into administration and got closed down. This meant that even though the Claimant harassed the Defendant with some unsigned letters/notices, there was no way for the Defendant to contact any store staff regarding the pending resolution of the matter as had been previously agreed by the Defendant with the Store Manager.

 

B.6) After more than a year, the Defendant received a Claim Form from Gladstone Solicitors Ltd. with the issue data as:  xx/zz/2019.

 

 

C) In line with the Defence previously filed with the Court, the Defendant’s challenge is based on the following counts:

 

1. Evidence showing that the Defendant was the customer at the said xxxx Store in Cambridge on the given day.

 

2. The PCN was issued prematurely without considering the mandatory 'grace period'.

 

3. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous (Abuse of Process)

 

Defendant’s challenge

 

1. Credit Card Statement as evidence
The credit card statement proving the Defendant as the customer at xxxx Store with a related transaction worth £10.27; Date: xx-yyy-2018 is provided with the Witness Statement.

2. The PCN was issued prematurely without considering the mandatory 'grace period'

The allegation appears to be based on a parking charge notice ('PCN') that was prematurely issued considering it was a free parking zone for the patrons of the store and that NO overstay occurred, given that it would certainly have taken more than 2 minutes on arrival to drive in/up/round and finding a space, then parked (and read the terms if they were visible) thereby just leaving less than 10 minutes after the expiry of the allowed parking time, and that is fully covered in IPC CoP (Part-B Section #15) section on the mandatory 'grace period'. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind an unconscionable £100 charge, subsequently raised to £160 and finally to £248.09, rather than the few pounds’ tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid, which is denied. The fact is, this PCN was issued in breach of the Claimant's Trade Body Code of Practice ('CoP') on 'Grace Periods'

 

 

sensahuma

Part-2 of WS

***************************

3. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous (Abuse of Process)

3.1 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.
3.2 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.

3.3 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.

3.4 Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with ‘ParkingEye V Beavis’ case:

3.4.1 at para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

 

3.4.2 at para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.''

3.4.3 at para 198. ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

 

   3.5 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.

3.5 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.

3.7 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.

3.8 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 an 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.

 

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...''

sensahuma

Part-3 of WS

*****************************************

3.9 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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged.

3.10 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.

3.11 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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signed:

Print Name: Mr. BOND

Date:

sensahuma

Hello experts. Please help as this is URGENT.

The defendant has just remembered that they have a Small Claims Track (Hearing) scheduled for this case at the local county court in two days time on the morning of 9th April (Thursday). Are the court proceedings still taking place? Do people have to attend in person or do this remotely using phone etc? How can one find out as there has been no instruction received by the defendant about this? The defendant tried calling the local county court but the line was disconnected after the message that said "all operators are busy, so call back later."

nosferatu1001

1) did you file and serve the WS (above) as directed? Yes or No. BOTH the court and the claimant must have received a copy
2) If you have not been told otherwise
- its taking place
- you must attend
- if its being done remotely you will have been told
- all you can do  is keep calling. I dont know what else you can do, or expect us to be able to do...

beamerguy

sensahuma said:

Hello experts. Please help as this is URGENT.

The defendant has just remembered that they have a Small Claims Track (Hearing) scheduled for this case at the local county court in two days time on the morning of 9th April (Thursday). Are the court proceedings still taking place? Do people have to attend in person or do this remotely using phone etc? How can one find out as there has been no instruction received by the defendant about this? The defendant tried calling the local county court but the line was disconnected after the message that said "all operators are busy, so call back later."

Just remembered ?????
If you have not received a letter from the court advising about the virus, you had better phone the court right now to find out what they are doing 

sensahuma

Thanks!

1) Yes, the defendant hand delivered the WS to the court and emailed a copy to claimant's rep; the claimant had shared their version WS via email to the defendant.

2) Will attend as advised unless the defendant gets lucky to get through to an operator on phone line and is advised to the contrary.

nosferatu1001

1) You need to take proof you sent the WS to the C with you on the day. COpy of sent items, any auto receipt email, whatever. Be able to prove it.
2) Hae you found an email address for them? Belt and braces.