Claim Form - UK Car Park Management/Gladstone

KeithP

richiew2k wrote: »

Also is it worth me going through the SAR process?

Define 'worth'.

The cost to you is negligible.

The benefits are unknown until you see what's returned.

richiew2k

Many thanks for the quick feedback, i have moved the points highlighted up to points 2 and 3. Also changed the point to third person.

Updated Draft of defence

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. 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.

3. The fee of £10 was 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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’.

8. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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...''

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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 confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge.

richiew2k

KeithP wrote: »

Define 'worth'.

The cost to you is negligible.

The benefits are unknown until you see what's returned.

Very true I will get this requested right away

Thanks

Le_Kirk

You just need a number for the paragraph between 13 & 14 plus there is more to support your spurious costs points if you search for the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy with the comment at post # 14 by Coupon-mad on that thread. You could also read a thread by CEC16 for up-to-date info. You can also leave it to your witness statement and evidence stage - still worth read though.

Umkomaas

The_Deep wrote: »

UKPC are fraudsters, read this

@TD - UKPC might be, but this thread isn't about UKPC, rather UKCPM.

Claim Form - UK Car Park Management/Gladstone

You're in danger of setting off people in wrong directions, they have enough to do without being landed with shadows to chase by 'one of those in the know'!

richiew2k

Hi All,

Just a brief update I have just received a Directions Questionnaire from Gladstones, do I need to do anything with this?

I am also working on updating the defence as mentioned above and will have that done by Monday

Kind Regards

KeithP

richiew2k wrote: »

Just a brief update I have just received a Directions Questionnaire from Gladstones, do I need to do anything with this?

Not really.

I had hoped item 7 on the list in post #2 on this thread - the very first reply you received - would've guided you on that.


Edited to add:
But it is unusual to receive a copy of the Claimant's DQ before you have filed a Defence.

Did you write anything in the 'Defence' box when you filed the Acknowledgment of Service?

Check the claim history on MCOL. Does it show 'Defence received'?

richiew2k

Thanks Keith,

No nothing was written in the defence box when filed the AOS

Just in the process of registering for MCOL so will let you know what it says once im in

richiew2k

I have logged into MCOL and it says defence received even though I did not put anything in the defence box when I sent it back?

It says your defence was received 18/11

You have submitted a defence or part admission

What should I do?

Thanks

KeithP

Well one idea might be to ring the CCBC and ask them to send you a copy of what they allege is your Defence.

How does that 18/11 date match to your AoS filing date?