County Court Claim

beamerguy

Staatsgrenze wrote: »

The parking notice referring to contractual agreement states; 'By parking or remaining on this site other than in accordance with the above you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms. You agree to pay a PCN in the sum of £80 to be paid within 28 days of issue this is reduced to £40 if aid within 14 days of issue.'

That's normal. You mean they are not saying they will add a fake £60 on top.

The Gladstones scam model only works if the person does not understand the law.

Gladstones scam the law and are now known as Rogue Traders

With this forum, you can see that the inept Gladstones are just money scammers and by the way, completely incompetent

READ UP ABOUT ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

This is just one you can refer to ....
Gladstones told by Judge .... added £60 NOT LAWFUL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76692888#Comment_76692888

beamerguy

Don't wish to be rude to you, but .... you are not getting this

You say the signs are not fit but do you have pictures to show this and are they available for the judge to see. Often a judge will just decide on that

You talk about ABUSE OF PROCESS but you don't say very much.
His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC oversees the Dorset court system, he was not the judge(s) who ruled on abuse of process.
You have been given your full response to ABUSE OF PROCESS by coupon-mad in post # 14 in the abuse of process thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal
PLEASE USE IT

So your case is via Gladstones.
Gladstones has already lost by adding the fake £60
GLADSTONES .... EXORBITANT CHARGES Case dismissed
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76533511#Comment_76533511

Gladstones told by Judge .... added £60 NOT LAWFUL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76692888#Comment_76692888

Your job is to advise the judge what other judges are doing.

Staatsgrenze

Yes I have pics as stated in my defence. I'll PDF the solicitors letters too as they're not verified/signed.
DEFENCE

1. The particulars of claim are vague stating a ‘breach of contract’ with no specific details as to what exactly constituted the breach. A Subject Access Request in letter form was sent to One Parking Solution dated the 13/01/20 and to date (24/01/20) no reply has been received by the defendant. The request asked for photographic evidence, the original PCN details and any other information the claimant had on the defendant.

Practice Direction.
Given the fact that ‘robo-claim’ solicitors and parking firms process tens thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant highlights that no solicitor is likely to have supervised the cut & paste claim. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed/verified the Particulars from Gladstones, which renders the statement of truth to have no authority which is in breach of Practice Direction 22.2
(1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth –
(a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but
(b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set out in it.
(2) The court may strike out a statement of case which is not verified by a statement of truth.

Statement of Value
The required fee of 50p for parking was indeed purchased in scratch- card form
and displayed ‘fully and clearly on the front windscreen’ on 23/2/18 on vehicle
registration number XXX XXX.
The private landowner (and defendant’s employer) therefore cannot be seen to have
incurred any losses. Neither can any proprietary interests by the car park operators
have been affected in any manner.

Abuse of Process. The Claimant’s representatives Gladstones Solicitors have inflated the value of the claim with additional fees that include £60 additional costs and £25 fees is not therefore a genuine estimate of loss and furthermore has been deemed unlawful and an abuse of process. 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.
The defendant therefore disputes the claimant’s statement of value under rule 16.3
of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998;
6) When calculating how much the claimant expects to recover, the claimant must disregard any possibility
(a) that the court may make an award of –
(i) interest;
(ii) costs;
(b) that the court may make a finding of contributory negligence;
(c) that the defendant may make a counterclaim or that the defence may include a set-off.

If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the
multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then
due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of
process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable
pursuant to CPR 27.14.
The defendant offers the judge to read further on this by referring to Claim
Number; F0DP201T with District Judge Taylor Southampton Court, 10th June 2019.


2. Signage. The signs are unlit so in the winter months /evenings they are not prominent. The signage is unremarkable and made up of small signs with wording consistently small as to deem the sign unreadable from even a short distance away (see attached photos).

Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name:
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

You need to just read other OPS threads.

Copy and adapt to suit, the one I wrote last month for basher52, this is far simpler than you are making it, due to not reading any OPS threads yet!

You haven't put in any facts yet, and are missing half the wording we'd want to see at defence stage. This is the same thing I tell everyone on all OPS threads.

Staatsgrenze

So today I received the SAR from OPS and the date on the LBC is now dated 16/1/20 the original would have been sometime in Feb 2018! Do you consider this is an offer of a 2nd chance to settle before court?

I found the link to basher52's defense under the thread Varley Park University -the link sent previously wasn't taking me to basher52 but to Le Panache.

I have been reading basher52 defense and have used some of it in my revised defense. I really need some specific advice now as to language and what to edit etc..Thanks.
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXX XXX when it was parked at Westgate Fields Chichester .
4. It is denied that:
4.1. A contract was formed
4.4. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

The particulars of claim are vague stating a ‘breach of contract’ with no specific details as to what exactly constituted the breach.
1. Statement of Value
The defendant had indeed paid the fee of 50p for parking in scratch- card form
and was displayed ‘fully and clearly on the front windscreen’ on 23/2/18 on vehicle
registration number XXX XXX.
The private landowner (and defendant’s employer) therefore cannot be seen to have
incurred any losses. Neither can any proprietary interests by the car park operators
have been affected in any manner.

2. Practice Direction.
Given the fact that ‘robo-claim’ solicitors and parking firms process tens thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant highlights that no solicitor is likely to have supervised the cut & paste claim. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed/verified the Particulars from Gladstones, which renders the statement of truth to have no authority which is in breach of Practice Direction 22.2
(1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth –
(a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but
(b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set
out in it.
(2) The court may strike out a statement of case which is not verified by a statement of truth.

3. Abuse of Process. The Claimant’s representatives Gladstones Solicitors have inflated the value of the claim with additional fees that include £60 additional costs and £25 fees is not therefore a genuine estimate of loss and furthermore has been deemed unlawful and an abuse of process.
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.
3.1. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.
Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' robo-claim model, and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''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 the Beavis case. 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...''
3.2. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out another parking ticket claim. The Judge mentioned the POFA 2012 and the Beavis case, and determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' Further, in issuing his Order without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.
3.3. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.
In summary, the claim discloses no cause of action and is without merit. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4
The defendant therefore disputes the claimant’s statement of value under rule 16.3
of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998;
6) When calculating how much the claimant expects to recover, the claimant must disregard any possibility
(a) that the court may make an award of –
(i) interest;
(ii) costs;
(b) that the court may make a finding of contributory negligence;
(c) that the defendant may make a counterclaim or that the defence may include a set-off.

4. Signage. It is denied that the claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which can be read from a short distance of 5 foot as the wording is indistinct being set
all the same size.
The signs are also unlit in the winter months /evenings therefore they are not prominent.
The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 18.3 states; Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.

Coupon-mad

So today I received the PoC from OPS and the date on the LBC is now dated 16/1/20 the original would have been sometime in Feb 2018! Do you consider this is an offer of a 2nd chance to settle before court?

No. But BW Legal always send a letter or two around the time you put your defence in, one says, misleadingly, that you are ''about to get a CCJ'' and one then suggests that they are proceeding and that you should ring them to talk about settling the 'account'.

Obviously there is no account.

You will need to re-number that defence as you start 1, 2, 3, 4, then your sub-headings take it back to #1, which makes your paragraphs confusing and nigh on impossible for you to refer the Judge to, later in court!

Is your local court Worthing? I have 'allowed' your username so that you can send pm's to me nearer the time of the hearing if you want help locally.

I can't see that your defence follows the structure (start and finish) of basher52's one, and it misses out the point about no landowner authority.

Remove this as it means nothing:

2. Practice Direction.
Given the fact that 'robo-claim' solicitors and parking firms process tens thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant highlights that no solicitor is likely to have supervised the cut & paste claim. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed/verified the Particulars from Gladstones, which renders the statement of truth to have no authority which is in breach of Practice Direction 22.2
(1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth ;
(a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but
(b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set
out in it.
(2) The court may strike out a statement of case which is not verified by a statement of truth.

And it is the Claimant who has inflated the claim, not Gladstones (well we all know it is them operating in 'cartel-stylee' but...) your defence needs to say it's OPS who have inflated the Claim as the Judge won't pass comment on Gladstones, I shouldn't think:

3. Abuse of Process. The Claimant's representatives Gladstones Solicitors have inflated the value of the claim with additional fees that include £60 additional costs and £25 fees is not therefore a genuine estimate of loss and furthermore has been deemed unlawful and an abuse of process.

Eek, remove those words in red! This is not about adding £25 and is certainly not to be argued on the basis of a sum not being a GPEOL. That argument went out the window in 2015 with the ParkingEye v Beavis case. It is as dead as a dodo in parking defences.

Just use the words I wrote for basher52 and adapt that defence. No added stuff or changing the way it's written. I've encouraged lots of local OPS victims, on and off this forum, to just copy that defence and change the facts and figures only.

It is easier than you are making it if you start again and bin your old version.

Staatsgrenze

Thanks that's helpful.
Ok so I'll adapt all 22 points of basher's then.
Who is BW Legal as i've not seen them referred to in any of my letters?
I'm in Portsmouth so would I have to use my local court ? Can I actually choose worthing?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Oh which solicitor are they using? Gladstones? QDR? DCBL?

They use all four.

Do choose Worthing if you can get there for a morning hearing (10am onwards, typically)...you will have local support in person, if I am available.

I am retired so I am normally able to go. Portsmouth is a bit of a push due to traffic, trouble is you might (rightly) say the same about Worthing!

Staatsgrenze

It's Gladstones. So the fact Gladstones haven't verified their statement of truth -signed their letters means nothing in my defense then?
So I am able to choose my court then that's good. I'll prob let the train take the strain to Worthing.:rotfl:

Coupon-mad

OK see you there as long as I am not on holiday or at my DD's graduation, etc.! DJ Ellis at Worthing is a clever Judge and in my experience she gets to the point very quickly, and will not allow OPS to have the added sixty quid in a month of Sundays even if an odd case is lost (never seen one but there must be some).

So the fact Gladstones haven't verified their statement of truth -signed their letters means nothing in my defense then?

They can sign as just 'Gladstones' on their letters - of course - like all solicitors do. The claim form should have had a name of legal rep but it's not a game changer.