PCN CC Claim from gladstones and UKPCM

Jellybelly23

Morning, sorry KeithP issue date is 13th Jan. Acknowlegement entered on 19th jan, received ed by them on 20th jan.

Jellybelly23

Ok so will put my current defence in and any comments greatly appreciated.

THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:xxxxxxxx

BETWEEN: 

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx was parked on the xxxx xxx at xxxxxxxxx,xxxxxxxx,, xxx xxx. In breech of the ‘contract’.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant XXXXX XXXXXX, was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) xxxx xxx. 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. 

4. 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.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom. 

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. 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,

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.

 

10. The defendant denies entering into any contractual agreement with any debt collecting company.
11. 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

This is mostly from the template on here by bargepole with a few dditions from above posts. Many thanks 

Castle

You may want to change paragraph 2.

Jellybelly23

Castle said:

You may want to change paragraph 2.

I think that's what you meant?

1505grandad

As above:-
PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE ABUSE OF PROCESS THREAD
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Jellybelly23

1505grandad said:

As above:-
PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE ABUSE OF PROCESS THREAD
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

I have read the above and thought paragraphs 8-10 were in reference to the abuse of process? have I just completely misunderstood?

Jellybelly23

also when making a complaint about Gladstones for abuse of process should I inform Gladstones that I have reported them for this before I enter my defence or does this give them some form of an upper hand? The entire process is so distressing I can see why people just give in to their demands and pay. 

Le_Kirk

Yes, they do but there is LOADS more ammunition if you scroll down that linked post until you find a comment by Coupon-mad.  That is what you want to add to your defence.

1505grandad

As above. I normally refer to post #14 by Coupon-mad in the AoP thread by Beamerguy, but with the new style forum there are no longer any blimming post numbers.

Le_Kirk

Isn't it annoying Grandad, it is a habit to refer to post numbers.  I did read that it "might" be on the agenda as a fix ............. in the future.