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

Coupon-mad

Good to get them all consolidated asap though so you knock them all down at once - STRIIIIKE!

Gerin_Manolis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good to get them all consolidated asap though so you knock them all down at once - STRIIIIKE!

Ha! Indeed... I keep reminding myself of all of the positive outcomes that I've read on this forum (Looking for a 'strong' emoji!!).

Anyone have any comments on my draft defence?

Gerin_Manolis

So it turns out that the letter (on Gladstones headed paper) that I thought was the LBC is in fact from the debt recovery people ... so I guess I'll just wait until the proper LBC arrives.

I would really appreciate some comments on the draft defence that I posted yesterday... would be great to know if any changes need to be made before I submit it....

KeithP

Gerin_Manolis wrote: »

I would really appreciate some comments on the draft defence that I posted yesterday... would be great to know if any changes need to be made before I submit it....

What??

Only yesterday you told us:

this was just a letter from Gladstones - not a court claim

You have over a month after a County Court Claim is Issued to file a Defence.

This is getting confusing.

Are you trying to progress two incidents in the one thread?

Coupon-mad

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

I think they have one claim?

Maybe the OP can confirm and tell us the Issue date of the N1 claim form.

Gerin_Manolis

KeithP wrote: »

What??

Only yesterday you told us:

You have over a month after a County Court Claim is Issued to file a Defence.

This is getting confusing.

Are you trying to progress two incidents in the one thread?

Yes, I'm sorry - I have the CCC for one set of PCNS for which I applied for a SAR. Five days after I applied for the SAR I got a letter on Gladstones headed paper referring to other PCNs. I thought that the second letter was a LBC but it turns out it was actually from their debt collection agency. Coupon-mad has advised that I need to get all outstanding PCNs consolidated so that I can fight them all at one. CCC is dated 13 January 2020 and I was advised that I need to submit by defence by 4pm on the 17th February (or earlier).

Redx

until they issue a court claim for the remaining pcn,s there is nothing you can do, plus its not even at LBC stage if the debt collectors sent out the letetr on a pimped out letterhead, it was merely a debt collection notice , not an LBC

if they issue an LBC , rebut it and tell them to add them to add them to this current court claim, if they issue an MCOL claim then you want them all consolidated like CM said

unfortunately , you have digressed from your defence of a current claim by mentioning this other issue , unfortunate timing and really should have had a separate thread because it isnt a court claim

for now , concentrate on your defence of the current court claim , so reproduce your defence in a reply below, dont deviate on other matters as it will get lost again in the mess (especially do not post about debt collectors in this court claim thread)

justs stick to honing your defence , posting it again will mean others wont have to go back to find it on their ipads or tablets etc , once posted , keep to that topic and no other

Coupon-mad

Yes, consolidation comes when they field another claim.

For now, show us your draft defence for the one that is at claim stage, for critique.

Gerin_Manolis

Here is my draft defence:

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.

Coupon-mad

I assume this is their POC and not you saying you ''are indebted''?!!

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 CLAIMANT 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.

At the start of your defence, deny the things you can deny. e.g. as follows and I have no idea why someone put 'authorised' registered keeper and everyone keeps copying that meaningless word!:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the [STRIKE]authorised[/STRIKE] registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. It is denied that the Defendant is ''indebted to the Claimant''

Your 3.1. and 3.2. must be on separate lines as new paragraphs.

And errm...you copied THIS??

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.

Get rid of 7.1 and #8 and #14 as they add nothing and are just waffle/repetition.

And in #12, Gladstones did not add the £60. The Claimant did, and the £60 is not for 'court fees'. You need to understand that you can't object to court fees (2 x £25) but you can object to the falsely inflated parking charge that has added £60 per PCN (we assume?). Put the full figures in your defence, i.e. if there are four PCNs at £70 each, then the C has falsely added 4 x £60 to them all, in a clear attempt at double recovery of false and duplicated costs.