Parking Charge - ESPE Ltd - Spinningfields - No Stopping Zone

nosferatu1001

Possibly do so now - state that as you are afriad their negligent parking company will issue a claim, you will require attendance of a company officer as a witness. You require dates in the next 6 months when a compnay officer, such as th ecompany secretary, will NOT be able to attend a small claims court hearing at *my town*. 

m19lka

So they have issued proceedings (Gladstones)
Here is my Defence:

1. I was the registered keeper of this vehicle. I deny that the 

Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. It is denied any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is 

denied entirely as there is no keeper liability and no cause for 

action against me. The Claimant has failed to show locus standi, 

and I do not believe they have a right to bring this action. 

3. The original fine was £100, excessive and disproportionate 

given the nature of the alleged contravention. This is not a 

genuine pre-estimate of loss. The amount of the loss may not 

change from £60 for the first 14 days and rise to £100 thereafter. 

  

4. 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. I have the reasonable belief that the 

Claimant does not have said authority, as I have requested this 

several times by recorded delivery post and email.

5. It is denied that the signs can have created a fair or 

transparent contract with a driver, hence incapable of binding the 

driver as the Claimant failed to comply with International Parking 

Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.

6. There is no indication of where the allegedly controlled area 

begins and ends, so it is ambiguous for a driver to know they are 

committing a chargeable parking offence.

7. I received no Letter Before Claim, from the Claimant or their 

Solicitor, despite requesting this on the 20th January 2020. .

8. I offered the Claimant an alternative to legal proceedings, 

namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent 

ADR service suited to parking charges but this was ignored.

9. The fine appeared to increase from £100 to £125 in a "Final 

Demand Letter". This in itself is an abuse of process.  .

10.  The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 

4(5) states the maximum sum recoverable 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. 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.  .

11. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, 

this Claimant's purported costs are disproportionate and do not 

stand up to scrutiny. 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.

12. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of 

the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) 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 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 denied. Given that robo-claim 

solicitors and parking firms process thousands of claims handled 

by admin team or paralegals, I believe that no solicitor is likely 

to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. 

12. I myself have probably racked up more costs than the Claimant 

given the amount of time spent on writing to the MP, Land 

Registry, BPA, Manchester Council, the Proprietor, and ofcourse 

over 20 letters to the Claimant which were all ignored.

13. According to Ladak v DRC Locums 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.

14. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch 4 makes clear the will of 

Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum 

recoverable 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 Claimants 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.

15. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis 

for the sum claimed and it is my 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. I invite the Court to dismiss the claim 

in its entirety.

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. I am 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 me such 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. I direct the Court to a recent case by DJ 

Stringer in Derby whereby £511.60 in costs was awarded for 

unreasonable behaviour by the Claimant, an entirely similar 

Parking Operator to the Claimant.

Umkomaas

Why aren't you using the standard template defence for all cases where an additional charge is claimed?  You are praying in aid the PE v Beavis case on costs, yet in the same breath claiming the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, the now near futility of which was confirmed by The Supreme Court in PE v Beavis!

You will find the defence template in one of the 5 'Announcements' shown at the top of the forum thread list.

KeithP

m19lka said:

So they have issued proceedings (Gladstones)

Then please tell us the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form.

John464

just to add
(11) its copy and paste, not cut and paste (thats where you delete it from where you copied it from)

m19lka

Hello,

Gladstones have not backed down and now it is listed for a paper hearing to be dealt with by the judge. I have until 12 Dec to file my bundle which I am getting in order.

Main thing i am focusing on is my Witness Statement.

My Defence was very detailed and thorough

Are there any wins against Gladstones for me to cite in my own case (Proper Judgments) - I have been through multiple threads and only find comments from those that have successfully won as oppose to cases I can cite in my own case.

Coupon-mad

A paper hearing...the thing we TELL EVERYONE TO SAY NO TO because you are more likely to lose? 

Why have you not replied to that Order saying NO?

Le_Kirk

Within this thread about telephone hearings are some reasons why it is not a good idea to have a hearing "on papers": -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1

m19lka

Coupon-mad said:

A paper hearing...the thing we TELL EVERYONE TO SAY NO TO because you are more likely to lose? 

Why have you not replied to that Order saying NO?

Le_Kirk said:

Within this thread about telephone hearings are some reasons why it is not a good idea to have a hearing "on papers": -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1

I chose a paper hearing as I had filed a comprehensive bundle whereas the other side filed next to nil.
An oral hearing would have provided an opportunity for the other side to put forward further submissions.

Won the case in any event - main reason being the judge agreed there was no clear "starting point" and "finishing point" for the No-Stopping Zone as they failed to produce a map or otherwise address this in their "bundle" as such, judge had no alternative to find in my favor. 

Minor points included the usual - small size font of the sign, limited number of signs etc

But, I must add despite my arguments with precedents and case law to back it up, the judge did not mention the extra fee's that the parking company had added on and their validity of the same. It would have been nice to see a judgement on that for future cases. But nevertheless, happy with the outcome

No award for costs in my favour as I did not file a schedule of loss (my fault) but hey - I learnt a lot in the process - didn't expect a monetary reward for the same!

Le_Kirk

Nice outcome for you.