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

Gerin_Manolis

Thanks Coupon Mad... can't believe I missed that on point 4 - I must have read it through at least 3 times. Apologies for that.

I am re-writing the beginning of the defence but, in the meantime, regarding point no 12 - is it Ok for me to put the actual amounts in my draft defence on here... ? I was worried that if I do that the particulars might help to identify me to Gladstones?

DoaM

The actual amounts will be common across many claims, so you're quite safe to post what they're actually claiming.

Gerin_Manolis

OK - so here is my second draft:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Horizon Parking Ltd (Claimant)

and

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)


Particulars of the Claim:

The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX (the Vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at Sainsbury's Sury Basin Kingston - LPS/ANPR
on XX/07/18 xxxxxx, XX/08/18, xxxxxx XX/08/1818 xxxxxx, XX/09/18 xxxxxx. 3 Thus incurring the parking charges (the 'PCN's'). The PCNs were not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN's from the Defendant as the driver / keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The Claimant claims £70 per PCN, £70 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £xx.xx pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.12 per day.

It should be noted that the Defendant 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.

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 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 Sainsbury's Sury Basin.

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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim to £140.00 per PCN. 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 £70 per PCN for 'contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions in a clear attempt at double recovery of false and duplicated costs.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name:
Signature:
Date:

KeithP

Gerin_Manolis wrote: »

I am re-writing the beginning of the defence but, in the meantime, regarding point no 12 - is it Ok for me to put the actual amounts in my draft defence on here... ? I was worried that if I do that the particulars might help to identify me to Gladstones?

You will of course have read this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5532696/important-before-you-post-personal-info-in-posts

It is one of the first links in post #1 of the NEWBIES thread.

Just a short excerpt from the opening post of that thread:

In the event of a court claim or a LBA - stating the exact amount being claimed. I remember earlier this year (I think) someone posting that they received a court claim and put the exact amount of something like £352.17 in the thread.
Next thing we know is that the PPC has PMed the OP saying words to the effect of "we have identified your case, we only have one case with this exact claim amount and this thread will be produced in court as evidence against you".

ImNoExpert

Not sure if this street view photo helps, it was apparently taken in April 2018, and if you spin the image around you'll see what I guess is the Pay Station zone's with more about the 1 hour free parking.

Did you ever use the Pay Zones? Are they saying you overstayed the initial free time (1h), the extended free time (2h when £10 spent in store), or the paid time (e.g. £4.00 for 4 hours)?

Coupon-mad

NONONO, you do not repeat their POC and say 'the vehicle parked in breach'!

Remove this, it has no place in your defence and reads like it's part of your words!

Particulars of the Claim:

The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX (the Vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at Sainsbury's Sury Basin Kingston - LPS/ANPR
on XX/07/18 xxxxxx, XX/08/18, xxxxxx XX/08/1818 xxxxxx, XX/09/18 xxxxxx. 3 Thus incurring the parking charges (the 'PCN's'). The PCNs were not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN's from the Defendant as the driver / keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The Claimant claims £70 per PCN, £70 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £xx.xx pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.12 per day.

It should be noted that the Defendant 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.

Gerin_Manolis

Coupon-mad wrote: »

NONONO, you do not repeat their POC and say 'the vehicle parked in breach'!

Remove this, it has no place in your defence and reads like it's part of your words!

OK - thanks. I had assumed that I was just stating the claim against me. Will amend.

Thanks for all of the input from all - I'm very much out of my comfort zone here so it's all much appreciated.

Gerin_Manolis

KeithP wrote: »

You will of course have read this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5532696/important-before-you-post-personal-info-in-posts

It is one of the first links in post #1 of the NEWBIES thread.

Just a short excerpt from the opening post of that thread:

I had read this but was confused by post no 73 above... will not mention any specific figures.

Redx

Just alter any figures by say £10-10p or whatever , to disguise the total claimed etc

If it's £257-57 in total then I would change it to say £262-62 for posting on here , then alter it to the correct figure before submission

The standard court fees and PCN charge and any £60 additional charges can stay as they are , it's usually the calculated interest that gives a claim it's unique total , not the figures we see hundreds of times on here

Gerin_Manolis

Here is my third draft. I would be grateful if anyone could advise particularly on 3.3 which I have just added.




IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Horizon Parking Ltd (Claimant)

and

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)


Particulars of the Claim:

The Claimant claims that the driver of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX (the Vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at Sainsbury's Sury Basin Kingston - LPS/ANPR on XX/07/18 xxxxxx, XX/08/18, xxxxxx XX/08/1818 xxxxxx, XX/09/18 xxxxxx. thus incurring the parking charges (the 'PCN's'). The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN's from the Defendant as the driver / keeper of the Vehicle. The Claimant claims that, despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The Claimant claims £70 per PCN, £70 per PCN contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £xx.xx pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.12 per day.

It should be noted that the Defendant 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.

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 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.
3.3 Further, the Defendant often enters and exits the car park on more than one occasion in any given day and it is therefore unclear whether the PCNs in question relate to the actual time that the vehicle was present.

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 Sainsbury's Sury Basin.

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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim to £140.00 per PCN. 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 £70 per PCN for 'contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions in a clear attempt at double recovery of false and duplicated costs.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.