Gladstones taking me to court for UK CPM

Yettym

Redx said:

Yettym said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you only have one claim then cause of action estoppel wasn't something you needed to read about.

I know, but I have multiple tickets and I am worried they might come after me for another ticket claim at the end of this one.

if they did that, instead of lumping them into this live claim, you would defend and add cause of action estoppel into the mix, because it is a factor in stopping serial claims where the claimant should do ONE claim for all unpaid invoices , not consecutive or concurrent court claims

What if they bring up other claims when this current court case has ended? Will I have to do this all over again.

Yettym

Hi guys,
Quick update………as predicted Gladstones rejected the request to put the claim on hold till I heard from their client in regards to the SAR. 
Also I got the POC from CCBC. See below 👇
thank you. 

Redx

Yettym said:

Redx said:

Yettym said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you only have one claim then cause of action estoppel wasn't something you needed to read about.

I know, but I have multiple tickets and I am worried they might come after me for another ticket claim at the end of this one.

if they did that, instead of lumping them into this live claim, you would defend and add cause of action estoppel into the mix, because it is a factor in stopping serial claims where the claimant should do ONE claim for all unpaid invoices , not consecutive or concurrent court claims

What if they bring up other claims when this current court case has ended? Will I have to do this all over again.

yes, but you add that cause of action estoppel into the new defence and ask for the new claims to be struck out as an abuse of process

Yettym

Redx said:

Yettym said:

Redx said:

Yettym said:

Coupon-mad said:

If you only have one claim then cause of action estoppel wasn't something you needed to read about.

I know, but I have multiple tickets and I am worried they might come after me for another ticket claim at the end of this one.

if they did that, instead of lumping them into this live claim, you would defend and add cause of action estoppel into the mix, because it is a factor in stopping serial claims where the claimant should do ONE claim for all unpaid invoices , not consecutive or concurrent court claims

What if they bring up other claims when this current court case has ended? Will I have to do this all over again.

yes, but you add that cause of action estoppel into the new defence and ask for the new claims to be struck out as an abuse of process

Ok got it 

Yettym

Hi guys , I have made all changes as advised, please help check again.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

         YXXXX                         

 (Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.    It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and not the driver of the vehicle therefore liability is denied.

3.    The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.
a) The Claimant did not identify the driver
b) The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
c) The Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA.

d) The defendant deny accepting any contract from UK CPM .There is no section on the defendant tenancy contract  that stated that the defendant needs a parking permit to park in the car park.

Yettym

Also guys, I appeal the tickets then ,based on coronavirus and shielding, do you think they will use this against me now that am saying something different in my defence? Here’s their response from the appeal where they pointed it out that it’s the driver responsibility to display permit (and am not the driver).

D_P_Dance

The £70 contractual costs are almost certainly unlawful.  Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Redx

The driver may well be responsible for the actions of the vehicle  If known , but there is no obligation on you as keeper to name the driver. If you read the above they keep talking about the driver , using the word driver , but not the keeper , so no mention of keeper responsibility or liability

The keeper can only be liable if the claimant has complied with POFA , which many don't , so as keeper you should be checking each NTK PCN for POFA compliance , or non compliance , as explained in the newbies FAQ sticky thread , first post. Non compliance means that you would have no liability !

You should appeal all of them , if possible , as keeper , but do not expect UK CPM to accept your appeals and cancel the PCNs , plus do not expect the IAS to do so either , rejection is extremely common

As for your DEFENCE above , 2) should say but , not and , so it's , but not the driver

Coupon-mad

And change 4:

d) The defendant denies that the unidentified driver of this car agreed to any contract from the Claimant .There is no section on the Defendant's tenancy agreement that mentions any parking permit and there are no obligations nor charges relating to parking.  The Defendant has primacy of contract, enjoys all the rights and easements held by the landlord and was not the driver.  Even if they had signs up somewhere to deter trespassers, the Claimant is an unknown third party with no cause of action against the Defendant.

Yettym

D_P_Dance said:

The £70 contractual costs are almost certainly unlawful.  Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

I will do as advised thank you….do you have a template of the complaint letter to MP please?