Claim Form - UK Car Park Management/Gladstone

richiew2k

Hi All,

Hope everyone is well. I have read a lot of the other threads but thought my situation had a few differences to others I had seen.

I am looking for your expert help if possible please as I have received a claim form from UK Car Park Management/Gladstone issued on 7th November.

The situation was that my work place was given a car park to park in that we had an arrangement arranged for. The arrangement was that we paid a fee of £10 amount to park there which I had registered for and paid.

The car park was managed by one company and then another took it over however we were still paying the £10 fee to park there. Then it was taken over by a new company which I assume is UK Car Park Management and this was when tickets started being issued.
I have been paying this since 2013 so I believe i have fairly paid my way to park in this location.


Steps so Far

So far I have -

1) Sent back the acknowledgement of service in which I also told them to contact me at my new address as previous correspondence was to my old address
2) I received a response from asking me to send them a recent utility bill as proof of address (dvla had already been updated of the address change)

Questions

1) Would the acknowledgment of service get me 28 days from the date that it was issued or the date they received it back?
2) How would this 28 days be affected by the request for utility bill etc?
3) What are my next steps and how would it be best for me to base the above situation into an appeal letter?

Many Thanks in advance

KeithP

richiew2k wrote: »

I have received a claim form issued on 7th November.

When did you file the Acknowledgment of Service?

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th November, you had until Tuesday 26th November to do the Acknowledgment of Service. Did you file the AoS by that date - Tuesday just gone?

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 10th December 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. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it 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 trying to keep you under pressure. Just file it.
   
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.

That request for a utility bill is just to confirm your change of address. It won't affect any time limits.

richiew2k

Thanks for the quick advice Keith,

So just to clarify I should definately send the utility bill or is the defence more important?

AOS was posted back around the 18th

Do you have the template that I can use for my defence please or able to send a link? i see there are lots in other threads but not sure how much is edited on a case by case basis or is part of the template.

Thanks Again

KeithP

Send that proof of address now. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

You should also advise the Claimant of your current address.

There are seventeen Defence examples linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. Pick one that nearly matches your situation and hone it to perfection.

There's a link to that NEWBIES thread in my earlier post.

richiew2k

Morning Keith,

I have had a look through the 17 templates but none of them really link to my situation where i was in an agreement with my employer to park in this carpark and was paying the monthly fee to have this priviledge.

All of the templates mention about bad signage etc is this just standard to put in all of them as part of the argument?

Should i just try and do a defence from scratch?

Thanks in advance

Redx

It's standard practice to include no landowner authority and signage

If you use the forum Search you will find examples of permission from employers workplace defences , especially where a fee is paid to allow permitted parking

Or you start with the concise conference by bargepole , add no landowner authority and signage etc , address the POC and also add abuse of process

Nobody starts from scratch on here , but each defence is bespoke , hence no templates are available , only examples that fit common cases

richiew2k

I found a claim whilst searching and have a bit to it at the end

Feel free to rip it to shreds


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

******(Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. The claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone. The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, section 9 (4), failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days.

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant, no cause for action can have arisen.

4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that the claim is for ‘breaching terms and conditions in operation at the car park/ private land’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement.

5. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Community Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated staff.

11. 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.

12. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, 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. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

The judges 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...''

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. This parking location is as agreed by my employer XXXX and a fee had been paid on a monthly basis for the arrangement to park in this location. Therefore the claimed amount is not valid as parking was taking place under this agreement.

17. The fee of £10 was made to my employer on a monthly basis for this benefit and all payments were fully up to date at the time of the alleged claim.

Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge.

The_Deep

UKPC are fraudsters, read this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP after the election, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]

richiew2k

Also is it worth me going through the SAR process?

The_Deep

richiew2k wrote: »

Also is it worth me going through the SAR process?

It is a sine qua non.

Le_Kirk

It's always worth submitting a SAR as it might be useful at witness statement evidence stage. I would move your points 16 & 17 to near the beginning as they are your important points. Also defences are written in the third person, so where you say: -

16. This parking location is as agreed by my employer XXXX and a fee had been paid on a monthly basis for the arrangement to park in this location. Therefore the claimed amount is not valid as parking was taking place under this agreement.

17. The fee of £10 was made to my employer on a monthly basis for this benefit and all payments were fully up to date at the time of the alleged claim.

Maybe better as: -

16. This parking location is as agreed by the Defendant's employer XXXX and a fee had been paid on a monthly basis for the arrangement to park in this location. Therefore the claimed amount is not valid as parking was taking place under this agreement.

17. The fee of £10 was [strike]made to[/strike] paid by the Defendant's employer on a monthly basis for this benefit and all payments were fully up to date at the time of the alleged claim.

Also made the change in BOLD, is that right?