Gladstones/UKCPM Defence

Coupon-mad

First post in 2023: 

Rinches19 said:

Good afternoon all

Firstly, a heartfelt thanks for all the amazing help posted on this forum - a fantastic resource for fellow Newbs fighting these type of claims!

I would like to begin by reporting a successful set aside(including the set aside cost)at Bath County Court last week. I will post a more detailed report of the day in the fullness - hoping others may find something useful in there.

It wasn't a total win though. The Judge(who seemed to be a last minute replacement, as the original Judge not available)was unimpressed with the '4 months dead' argument, and I will now have to defend the claim, filing a defence within 14 days.

I am currently adapting the Defence Template and will post the altered paragraphs here, and be grateful in advance for any more sage advice offered!

So the background..

I am the registered keeper.

Being a Curo(Housing Association)leaseholder(property purchased 2007), I received 2 PCNs dated 16/12/2017 and 23/12/2017 related to parking outside of a marked bay.

I have a right to use the parking area as stated in the lease(dated 1989).

UKCPM got involved in the parking area in November 2017 issuing permits to the residents, without consultation.

A large Georgian wall collapsed into an area of allocated parking crushing several cars 14/12/2017.

Many residents moved their cars out of harms way as soon as possible. Parking outside of the allocated bays, but not being an obstruction to other residents' rights of way.  Some did not.

UKPCM came along and ticketed cars no longer parked in the allocated bays 16/12/17 and 23/12/17.

Further wall collapse 30/12/17 crushing more cars.

Property sold May 2018(court papers served to this address in November 2018, hence successful set-aside).

During the set-aside hearing I argued I had 3 possible defences.

1. The signs were inadequate('no contract'). I believe they are and will attach examples. But the Judge wasn't convinced because as I lived there I should have known what they say or sought more information.

2. That I had a right to park where I was ticketed('primacy of contract') as my lease only gives an outline of the allocated parking area without any obligations to permits, marked bays etc. Judge again seemed unimpressed, as the pictures show the car clearly parking on double yellow lines.

3. That as a large proportion of allocated bays became dangerous, full of rubble so impossible to use('frustration of contract?'). I(or the driver nearly 6 years ago)had no option but to find somewhere close to home to unload groceries, building materials, my young daughter etc...This one seemed to interest the Judge and I supplied pictures of the event and newspaper articles supporting my account, eventually granting the Set Aside.


So.. a few questions if I may..

1. Will it be the same Judge? Should I just focus on Defence No.3, as this one seemed to resonate the most...or set out all 3?

2. Is it only the Defence I need to send the local court within 14 days? I've read through the newbies thread, just a little concerned as this is a defence after a set-aside, and i can't find many examples of this on the forum.

bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/wall-collapses-crushes-multiple-cars-925194

bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/wall-collapses-again-damaging-multiple-996722

UPDATE 2025:

It appears (after 2 calls to the court after filing my defence post set-aside early august 2023), this claim hasn't actually gone away.

A call to the court after receiving a 'Notice of Proposed Allocation' has informed me that due to a paperwork oversight by the county court in 2023 we are now back here nearly 2 years later.

My conversation with the court has suggested that after return my N180 a Judge may look at the case and decide that there is no point in pursuing this anyway.

Has anyone heard of anything like this before?

I'm wondering if it it still in Gladstone's hands or another company has picked it up and chased it(there is only mention of UK CPM on the Notice of Proposed Allocation form).
So, I'm unsure who to it serve to along with the court(the woman I spoke to at the court suggested a another company may have picked this claim up).

She's clueless. That has not happened. The case is still a claim filed by Gladstones on behalf of the Claimant.

Attach to your N180 a separate sheet headed with the claim number, court, parties' names (not Gladstones, they are not a party) and this heading and this wording:


SKELETON ARGUMENT:
THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT

1.  This is a claim that the Claimant has allowed to lie dormant since the Defendant successfully applied to set aside the improperly served 2018 claim. The Defendant asks the court to exercise its case management powers and strike the claim out.

1.1.  The set aside hearing was in 2023 and in order to deal justly with the matter, the question based on the Overriding Objective is - regardless of the cause of delay being an apparent paperwork oversight by the court - should this claim now see the light of day in 2025 given the circumstances of the case (which are already known to both parties)?

1.2.  There is nothing worthwhile about this ancient claim that presents a reason to trouble the court and the parties with a second hearing two years later. There are compelling reasons and new case law since 2023 that confirm that this claim does not get off the ground and should be struck out:


Age of the claim and expired period to serve Particulars (the 2018 claim has long since expired un-served)

2.1. The two parking charges are now eight years old (16/12/2017 and 23/12/2017) and well outside the maximum limitation period, had a claim been raised now. Whilst that in itself may not be a reason to strike out the claim, it is surely a red flag and unreasonably detrimental to the Defendant who won at the first hearing in 2023, defended as the judge directed them to do and the Defendant was entitled to certainty and finality.

2.2.  A claim cannot continue for an infinite time.  Even if the Court mislaid paperwork, if the Claimant really had an interest in this claim the burden lay with them (the represented party) to alert the court two years ago.

2.3. The Claimant failed to serve the Particulars of Claim (POC) to the correct address within 4 months of filing the claim, so the POC expired un-served. 

2.3.1.  It is a core procedural requirement under CPR 7.5 that a claim form must be served within four months of the date of issue. Where this does not occur, the claim expires and cannot be continued or revived without a formal application and good reason. In this case, several years more than a mere four months have elapsed since issue in 2018, and no valid service was ever affected. As such, continuation of this claim is contrary to the CPRs and established legal practice.

2.3.2.  The Claimant bears sole responsibility for failing to ensure proper service within the required timeframe. The consequence is that this claim is now expired and unserved, and it is not open to the Claimant to proceed with it.

2.3.3. In Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture & Others [2013] EWHC 1242 (TCC), the Court held that a failure to serve claim forms properly, combined with procedural delays, amounted to an abuse of process and warranted the claim being struck out under CPR 3.4.

2.3.4.  Similarly, in Nugent v Nugent [2019] EWHC 1151 (Ch), the Court struck out proceedings on the basis that the claim had not been properly served and the claimant had failed to adhere to principles of procedural fairness.

2.3.5. These authorities reinforce the proposition that where a party fails to comply with fundamental service requirements and undermines the fair progression of proceedings, striking out the claim is not only justified but necessary to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.


Primacy of contract: the lease

2.4.  Further and in the alternative: it is common ground (already covered in the 2023 submissions from both parties - including a copy of the Defendant's lease - so this not news to the Claimant despite the fact that they elected not to attend the first hearing and will no doubt do the same if the court sets a date for another) that the Defendant was a resident and enjoyed a right to use the parking area as stated in their lease dated 1989.

2.4.1.  In the light of this information, the Claimant had ample opportunity to discontinue this hopeless claim straight after the set aside hearing in 2023 but they did not. Instead, they appear to have forgotten about it.

2.4.2.  It is common ground (again, already covered in 2023) that the Claimant, UKCPM, only got involved in the parking area in November 2017 and started issuing permits to the residents. This was without consultation and this moneymaking scheme targeted residents and interfered with their established lease rights and/or easements.

2.4.3. Imposing this parking scheme represented a derogation from grant and a breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The clauses in the lease - already adduced in the Defendant's evidence to support the CCJ set aside application in 2023 -  explicitly allow residents to park a vehicle.

2.4.4. To impose additional restrictions or charges through a third party parking operator (a stranger to the lease) is inconsistent with the lease terms and is, therefore, unlawful. The landmark case of DUCHESS OF BEDFORD HOUSE RTM COMPANY LIMITED & ORS V CAMPDEN HILL GATE LTD [2023] EWCA Civ 1470 was heard in the same year as this set aside hearing and reaffirmed residential parking rights using not only a fair interpretation of the lease but also section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

2.4.5. It is also common ground that in the extant case, a large Georgian wall collapsed into an area of allocated parking crushing several cars in 14/12/2017. This was why vehicles were displaced for several weeks. The Claimants have never put forward a coherent answer to counter the authority of Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd[2012] EWHC 1422, and the Defendant's submission that, as soon as the parking bays were out of action due to works to repair the walls, the Housing Association had a duty to provide alternative parking areas for the displaced vehicles, in order to avoid any detriment to residents.  The Claimant is well aware that marked bays were since added (likely by them) where the defendant received PCNs, so there was never a cause of action.


Persuasive Appeal Authorities in two parking cases: Civil Enforcement v Chan and CPMS v Akande

2.5. Whilst the POC were never served, they were filed and the court will be able to see the typical incoherent Gladstones pleadings. These will have been boilerplate POC that do not even specify the alleged breach, setting out a cut-and-paste and extremely sparse statement of case. Such POC appear to be in breach of Part 16, CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action".

2.5.1. Since the first CCJ case hearing, there have been two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

2.5.2.  The two relevant appeal cases are: Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30). Link to the Chan and Akande cases here.

2.5.3. Two weeks after the CCJ set aside hearing in the extant case, on the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

2.5.4. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.

3. In all the premises, this claim should be struck out.

Date: 20/5/2025

Coupon-mad

Did the first judge reserve your costs, or was he so clueless that he didn't make an order as to costs?

Rinches19

Fantastic @Coupon-mad

Will do as instructed.

At the set-aside hearing(upon asking), the Judge ordered the claimant to pay my costs.

 Gladstones have duly paid.

1505grandad

In case of a straight c & p of the above excellent SA  -  para 2.4  -  a couple of typos and a bracket missing?

"........including a copt of the Defendant's........"
"...... and will no doubt do the same of the court sets a date for another).........."

Rinches19

Agreed @1505grandad - an excellent SA.

Will update accordingly.

Coupon-mad

Filling in the N180 is covered in the NEWBIES thread but don't send it to the CNBC by mistake. It goes to the local court at Bath, as per the order. Make sure you copy in Gladstones. You must. 

Pshtiger2025

Hi - jumpaing on this thread. I have completed the N180 and I need to return and serve all parties a copy, please could i ask for advice here. Do i email it to CNBC or do i post it to the CNBC? Also the claimant is SIP parking limited, do i send them a copy? thanks

KeithP

Pshtiger2025 said:

Hi - jumpaing on this thread. I have completed the N180 and I need to return and serve all parties a copy, please could i ask for advice here. Do i email it to CNBC or do i post it to the CNBC? Also the claimant is SIP parking limited, do i send them a copy? thanks

@Pshtiger2025, why have you posted on this thread?

As it will only lead to confusion, I suggest that you delete your above post from this thread and continue all discussion about your predicament on your existing thread...
              forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6606399/help-before-court-thanks/p1

Pshtiger2025

Hi, The reason why is it says here DONT send it to the CNBC, send it to the local court (bath in this case), where as in the newbies section it say email it to CNBC not post. SO pretty confusing all over. 

Gr1pr

This thread is where the OP is dealing with an actual court,  like Bath , the newbies sticky thread is about new court claims that all originate from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL for all of England and Wales,  so clearly new cases deal with the CNBC,  a government department centre,  located in Northampton,  not a court but a government central office that deals with new cases at the early stages, including the defence and the N180 stage , as explained in the newbies sticky thread 

Jumping in on other threads is dangerous for newbies who dont understand the system,  hence why if you have a new court claim,  you are expected to start a new thread about it and receive bespoke advice that is relevant to the new case and not be sidetracked by historical bespoke advice in complicated court matters

Historical cases have usually been transferred to actual courts in England and Wales,  by the CNBC,  so from the CNBC who then have no further involvement after the transfer is complete , as in this thread 

So

When you are dealing with the CNBC in Northampton,  follow their process and deadlines 

But

When dealing with local civil courts, follow their process and deadlines , which could be different