Gladstone's Solicitors / Horizon Parking / County Court Claim - help!

Gerin_Manolis

Redx wrote: »

Here is the actual link

https://m.imgur.com/a/oT7MEkp

If it's for 4 PCN,s at £70 plus court fee plus legal fee , I fail to see how they get the total claimed

Thanks for sorting the proper link! The form says £70 per PCN and then £70 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the contract so a total of £140 per PCN plus the interest and court and legal fee. That does add up to the total... but what are the contractual costs??

Gerin_Manolis

OK so now I've received what I believe to be a LBC from the delight that is Gladstones asking for over £500 for other parking tickets which I believe they are claiming from 2019 (it's a different car registration to the above claim so that's how I know it must be from last year).


I am feeling unbelievably stressed and persecuted as the total so far that they're claiming I owe from each set of charges is now nearly £1,300. I couldn't sleep last night worrying about it but am determined to fight.


I presume that I should start again with this LBC and do a new SAR as I have done for the other Court Claim? But with this one as it's before Court Claim I can email Gladstones and say that I'm seeking debt advice?


However the SAR asks for all outstanding claims against me - or is it against the car? So I'm wondering if this new claim with the PCNs (the letter doesn't say how many) be added to the existing claim or, because it's a different VRN, should this be separate?

Gerin_Manolis

Here is my first draft of my defence. I would be very grateful if those in the know could cast their eyes over it and offer any comments / changes etc. I am particularly unsure about clause 12... and whether the court fee is allowable? Thanks in advance.

1“ The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (s) issued to vehicle XXXX at Sainsbury's Sury Basin LPS/ANPR. 2 D is not in possession of the PCN numbers at present but a SAR has been issued for the documents and they will provided to the Court at the Exhibits stage. The dates of the PCNS

are XX/07/18 xxxxxx, XX/08/18, xxxxxx XX/08/1818 xxxxxx, XX/09/18 xxxxxx. 3 The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on Cs signs (the contract), thus incurring the PCN(s) 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages. AND THE CLAIMENT Claims

1 £XXX.XX the total cost of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.12 until judgement or sooner payment. 3 Costs and court fees.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Horizon Parking Ltd (Claimant)

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. The facts are that the Defendant was a member of the gym and the Defendant (and other family members / drivers of this care in 2018) often shopped in Sainsburys. Both the gym and the Supermarket are on the same site, so it is likely the driver was a genuine patron of one of the other, or both (after using the gym it was common for members to then do some shopping whilst there).3.1. It is believed that the system may have changed since then, so any signage in the car park will be different, but the Defendant recalls some vague terms allowing 90 minutes free parking for gym patrons and for Sainsburys customers. However, where that parking licence or offer becomes blurred, was if a patron used the gym and then Sainsburys, or vice versa. The doctrine of contra proferentem - enshrined now in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the 'CRA 2015') applies, and the interpretation of terms and/or consumer notices (signs) that most favours the consumer must be used - namely that if a Sainsburys shopper is allowed 90 minutes free parking, and a gym member is allowed 90 minutes free parking, then if a driver uses one facility followed by a visit to the other, going by the ambiguous terms on offer it is reasonable to conclude that 2 x 90 minutes parking (plus grace periods) were on offer.
3.2 Further, members of the gym were supposed to be able to scan their gym membership card but in the Defendant's experience in the past, this system never worked and again, this offends against the CRA 2015 Schedule 2. The defendant believes the terms and consumer notices are likely to have breached paragraphs 6, 10, 14 and 18 of that statutory 'grey list' of terms that are likely to be unfair in consumer contracts.

4. 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 X when it was parked at Varley Park (UOB), Brighton.

5. It is denied that:
5.1. A contract was formed
5.2. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
5.3. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site or that the parking areas were clearly delineated or the signs adequately lit.
5.4. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
5.5.The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the British Parking Association Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

6. The Defendant did not enter into any ‘agreement on the charge’, no consideration or communication took place between the parties and therefore no contract was established.

7. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

7.1. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £60 or £30 if paid within 14 days.

8. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant, was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle X. 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.

9. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, 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.

10. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant’s signage set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

11. The terms on the Claimant’s signage were 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.

12. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim to £***.** The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 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 £70. The claim includes an additional £60, for court fee which is disputed as the claim has not yet reached court.

13. 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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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.

14. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

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. 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.

Redx

Gerin_Manolis wrote: »

OK so now I've received what I believe to be a LBC from the delight that is Gladstones asking for over £500 for other parking tickets which I believe they are claiming from 2019 (it's a different car registration to the above claim so that's how I know it must be from last year).

I am feeling unbelievably stressed and persecuted as the total so far that they're claiming I owe from each set of charges is now nearly £1,300. I couldn't sleep last night worrying about it but am determined to fight.

I presume that I should start again with this LBC and do a new SAR as I have done for the other Court Claim? But with this one as it's before Court Claim I can email Gladstones and say that I'm seeking debt advice?

However the SAR asks for all outstanding claims against me - or is it against the car? So I'm wondering if this new claim with the PCNs (the letter doesn't say how many) be added to the existing claim or, because it's a different VRN, should this be separate?

a SAR should have provided a reply that includes ALL of your documents, pictures and data in YOUR NAME , nothing to do with any vehicle, be it one vehicle , two , or ten

if you had a SAR reply check for ALL OF YOUR DATA , if there is missing data , email again and demand all the missing data

if in doubt , email a SAR with a copy of the court claim form as proof of I D ,

YOU are the data subject , NOT the vehicle

and yes tell gladrags to place the matter on hold whilst you seek debt management advice (they will likely refuse, or put it on hold for a limited period)

Gerin_Manolis

OK thanks. I only applied for the SAR last week so I guess they'll take their time to send all of the documents. Perhaps it's what prompted them to send the letter that I received yesterday. I'll email them now to ask for them to put the matter on hold.

Gerin_Manolis

Sorry - a further question. Does this mean that I should therefore refer to these PCNs in my defence? If so it's tricky as the latest letter doesn't refer to specific PCNs - just the inflated amount that they believe I should pay. I need to submit my defence for the first claim by the 17th February so am concerned that it wouldn't be correct without the relevant PCN dates.

KeithP

Gerin_Manolis wrote: »

I'll email them now to ask for them to put the matter on hold.

Once a County Court Claim has been issued that is no longer an option - as indicated in posts #41 and#42 above.

Gerin_Manolis

Yes, I understand that but as the letter I received yesterday refers to different PCNs and this was just a letter from Gladstones - not a court claim - can I not ask for those ones to be put on hold or will they all be put together?

Redx

for now you ask for a hold on this latest LBC but not the court claim

if a second court claim appears , you will be asking for them both to be consolidated into one hearing

THE CLAIMANT HAS 30 DAYS TO REPLY TO YOUR SAR

when the reply comes , check for any and all pcn,s including those being claimed for at the moment in the MCOL plus in the LBC

there could be more for all you or we know

Gerin_Manolis

Redx wrote: »

for now you ask for a hold on this latest LBC but not the court claim

if a second court claim appears , you will be asking for them both to be consolidated into one hearing

THE CLAIMANT HAS 30 DAYS TO REPLY TO YOUR SAR

when the reply comes , check for any and all pcn,s including those being claimed for at the moment in the MCOL plus in the LBC

there could be more for all you or we know

OK thanks. Just waiting for more to appear