Defence for Claim from Gladstone Solicitors for UKCPM

petsmart

I am planning to defend a claim made by Gladstones representing UKCPM and wondered if anyone could please provide some advice.
If I complete the AOS by sending back the AOS form sent in the post, does that mean I can no longer set up the case on MCOL and submit the defence statement there? The reason being is that I am waiting for a surname change to be made on Government Gateway and would like to submit the AOS sooner rather than later. I sitll have 7 days remaining to do so.
The Particulars of the claim only mention 'a breach of terms of parking' whereas the original PCN sent by UKCPM referred to the vehicle being 'parked outside of a marked bay'. The parking space/bay in question is highly misleading and according to the Tesco Express manager whose store is on the site, many of his customers are inadvertently parking there  and being penalised. The bay in question is (poorly) marked for only two cars but it very much looks like it is meant for three cars. The Tesco manager himself fell foul of this too. Tescos are not the landowners and when the staff attempted to place a sign at the back of the parking bay to highlight to customers that the bay is only for 2 cars as opposed to 3, the UKCPM parking attendant took it down and told the Tescos staff that drivers should automatically know that the bay is meant for two cars only. Apparently the UKCPM attendant is often seen by the Tescos staff circling the car park waiting for a driver to park in between the two parking spaces, before taking a photo of the 'offending' vehicle. A clear form of entrapment, I would suggest.
So my question is, since the the particulars of the claim only mention a breach of the terms then should I make any mention of the misleading layout of the parking spaces in my defence statement, or save that for the witness statement?

Thanks

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Redx

Do not post the AOS , just do it online like everyone else , leave the defence box alone , post the issue date from the claim form for proper instructions

Do not fill in the defence box at all , the defence will be emailed

Read the newbies FAQ sticky thread post 2 , near the top of the forum

Save explanations for the WS , but add a point about entrapment to the defence

beamerguy

What a story.  Gladstones and UKPCM are bed fellows, trouble is they have not changed the sheets for months and their pathetic claims are now producing a bad smell in the courts.
Clearly UKCPM are running a money scam.  If the Tesco manager has been caught out with this scam then he will want this stopped. Invite him to appear as your witness

CALLING A WITNESS TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE ..
Posted by Brown Trout
Witness Summons in the County Court
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/609946doubt Gladstones have added their usual scam of £60 ???

Gladstones told by Judge .... added £60 NOT LAWFUL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76692888#Comment_76692888"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76756261#Comment_76756261">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76756261#Comment_76756261"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1?new=1" title="Link: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1?new=1">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1?new=1

Given that Gladstones seem to think that county court judges are a joke, do what others are doing, complain to the SRA
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page

petsmart

Thanks so much for your very helpful responses.
The Issue Date of the Claim is 12 Feb 2020 and I have just submitted the AOS online. And yes, I have already spoken to the Tesco manager about him appearing as a witness and he said he is happy to do so, as he is sick and tired of his poor customers being caught out by this scam and always coming to him to complain. He was delighted when I told him I'd be defending the claim and going to court over it.
Once I have drafted my defence statement, I will post it on here and would welcome any comments.
Thanks again.

KeithP

petsmart said:

The Issue Date of the Claim is 12 Feb 2020 and I have just submitted the AOS online. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th March 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

1. Print your Defence.
   
2. Sign it and date it.
   
3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
6. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not, chase the CCBC until it is.
   
   After filing your Defence, there is more to do...
   
   
7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.
   
8. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, or download one from the internet - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track , and then complete it as described by bargepole in his 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou"]
   
9. The completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to the same address and in the same way as your Defence was filed earlier.
   
10. Send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant - to their address on your Claim Form.

beamerguy

petsmart said:

Thanks so much for your very helpful responses.
The Issue Date of the Claim is 12 Feb 2020 and I have just submitted the AOS online. And yes, I have already spoken to the Tesco manager about him appearing as a witness and he said he is happy to do so, as he is sick and tired of his poor customers being caught out by this scam and always coming to him to complain. He was delighted when I told him I'd be defending the claim and going to court over it.
Once I have drafted my defence statement, I will post it on here and would welcome any comments.
Thanks again.

This is ironic ..... When Tesco employ parking scammers themselves, the CEO does not want to know and his executive staff fob their customers off ?????   He will know Dave Lewis the CEO, the man who hates Tesco's customers

petsmart

Please find below my draft defence statement. I have included a line about 'entrapment' in paragraph 5. I'd very much welcome your comments.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

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, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date 

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxxx ;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle xxxxx;. 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. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event, hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’. Further, the defendant has reasonable belief  that the claimant is using methods of ‘entrapment’ in order to intentionally bring about charges against innocent drivers.

 6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

 7. 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.

 8. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

 

9. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

 

10. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

 

11. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

 

12. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA 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.

 

13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

 

14. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''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 ParkingEye 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...''

 

15. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

 

16. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

 

17. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

 

Statement of Truth:

 

I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

beamerguy

You are being taken to court by Gladstones and whilst you highlight abuse of process, show the judge what other courts are doing to Gladstones.   You will have this monkey sitting next you in court so make the judge fully aware of the antics of Gladstones

Gladstones told by Judge .... added £60 NOT LAWFUL
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76692888#Comment_76692888"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76756261#Comment_76756261">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76756261#Comment_76756261"nofollow" href="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76533511#Comment_76533511">https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76533511#Comment_76533511"wet behind the ears" rep.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6017649/county-court-claim-private-pcn-from-uk-cpm&page=4
The judge said the £60 in not lawful and claimant rep said they no longer are seeking it (so only the £100). ???
GLADSTONES CAUGHT OUT IN COURT AGAIN

1505grandad

Check out the new suggested template defence to adapt for all parking charge cases where they add false admin costs posted 26.2.20 by Coupon-mad with instructions (to hopefully get the claim thrown out):-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.