Premier Park / Gladstones Small Claim Court - defence BPA grace period - dismissed

Coupon-mad

Good wording.  But call it a 'persuasive Appeal judgment'.

Put a screenshot of the actual judgment in along with the two others like in the thread by @manooo or tack all three as a merged PDF on the end of the signed defence with the Appeal decision definitely first.

KeithP

Change the start of that paragraph by mentioning that case was an appeal.

Maybe - #. The recent appeal judgment - Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44)...

It is the fact that it was a Judgment made on appeal that makes it persuasive.

Coupon-mad

And put 'persuasive' to stop anyone skim-reading and thinking it's just a county court decision.

RileyRileyRileyRiley

Thanks all for your help. I have now submitted via email, just waiting for a response

My changes to the template:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a copy-and-paste, incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The PoC is devoid of any detail and lacks any specific breach allegation, making it very difficult to respond.  It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle specified in the PoC ('the Vehicle').  It is asserted that the Defendant was not the driver of the Vehicle at the time the Claimant implies a Contract was formed. 

3. The Defendant admits that the Vehicle was present at the car park specified in the PoC ('Park Lane Car Park') on the date specified in the PoC.  Park Lane Car Park is known to have a free parking period of 90 minutes, for which no ticket is required.  The Defendant recalls the day clearly as they were present on that occasion, as a customer of the shops in the vicinity.  The Defendant also clearly recalls, having vacated the parking space, being delayed by several minutes in leaving the car park due to traffic congestion at the shared thoroughfare which is both the entry and exit point of Park Lane Car Park.

4. as template

5. as template

6 & 7 - New section featuring my parts as suggested by @B789  above and from a @Coupon-mad post and a bit of tweaking from me:

Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules

6. Recent persuasive Appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44, attached) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16.  In the cited case HHJ Murch held that '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 Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct.  The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC. 

7. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. This is indicated in two further persuasive judgments:

(i) At the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image PoC from Gladstones in Parallel Parking v anon (Claim ref. K3GF9183) and struck the Claim out without a hearing: 

image from post linked above

(ii) Similarly, in January 2023 and also without a hearing District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning: 

image from post linked above

Then as template:

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

8. as template #6 to end with minor tweaks - formatting, any inconsistencies I spotted

etc.

Coupon-mad

Great! Except the other two are just county court strike outs and aren't persuasive. The HHJ Murch one is.

If you missed out the point about the extortionate 10.25% interest (that in this industry, only Gladstones add) make a note to object to it in your WS.

Are you now going to email the DLUHC your evidence to answer Q4 of the Call for Evidence?

Only 3 weeks left to change the law.

RileyRileyRileyRiley

Thanks, I should have realised 'persuasive' has some legal clout - I was using it in the literal sense.

Ah, I did add a paragraph about Gladstones under the Exaggerated Claim section, stapled together from here and there and tweaked a bit. It went in after the paragraph starting "This case is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds the 'numbers game' of bulk litigation..."  :

11. The legal representative of the Claimant, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have applied an arbitrary interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have conjured from thin air.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%.  The Defendant has discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) consistently adds this interest rate to their claims, and is highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' criticised in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this Defence.  Gladstones Solicitors Limited issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, consistently citing a deplorable interest rate of 10.25% per annum, as well as an unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN), adding unfairly to each claim.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, serving only a drive for additional profit and completely unrelated to the original £100 charge alleged by the Claimant.  The Defendant trusts that (if the claim is not struck out at Allocation stage, which the Defendant believes it should be) the Judge will address the wholly unreasonable inflation in claims from Gladstones Solicitors Limited at their final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction this bulk litigator so that they cease this abuse.

Forgot about this, was getting a bit edit-happy at this point!

Coupon-mad said:

Are you now going to email the DLUHC your evidence to answer Q4 of the Call for Evidence?

Only 3 weeks left to change the law.

Will do 

RileyRileyRileyRiley

Update:
I have just opened a court letter, dated 10 Jan, stating I have "failed to file the Directions Questionnaire" and have seven days from service to file.

Annoyingly I have not received the notice prior to this that is implied from the letter.

Any help much appreciated.

Le_Kirk

Download, complete and return by e-mail a DQ (N180) to the same address that you used for sending your defence.  Full instructions in the 12 steps process in the NEWBIE sticky or template defence threads.

Coupon-mad

RileyRileyRileyRiley said:

Update:
I have just opened a court letter, dated 10 Jan, stating I have "failed to file the Directions Questionnaire" and have seven days from service to file.

Annoyingly I have not received the notice prior to this that is implied from the letter.

Any help much appreciated.

Just do what the Order says.

Downloading the DQ is in the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread (please re-read those steps because it is a little worrying to us to read - four months after you last posted - that you were surprised by this letter and didn't stay on top of it and just download one before Christmas, knowing this was the next step).

We know no DQ arrived it but that is fairly common, which is why we cover that in the 12 steps. Our advice preempts such issues.

Please be ready for WS stage.

RileyRileyRileyRiley

Attending court later and can't sleep!

Claim has been "block listed …together with other claims before more than one Judge".

I've read through the linked info in the Newbies thread a number of times but still feeling nervous so would appreciate any last minute advice