County Court Claim Form received

NeverBackDown

B789 said:

NeverBackDown said:

In the AoS (filed by the Defendant) the Defendant has named me as the Driver - in the box specifically for that reason.

Does that now make me the Defendant? I am confused as to who's point of view this Defence is being written from. If this goes to Court I want to be the one to give evidence, as I was the driver - I don't want that stress on my partner. This is currently being written from my partner's PoV.

What exactly do you mean by the bit I highlighted above? Did you partner actually put anything in the Defence box? If so, they have FUBARed the defence.

Whoever's name is on the clam form is the Defendant. Irrespective of who was driving or not, the Defendant is the person defending the claim. Just because you were the driver, matters not. our partner is defending the claim.

You can do most of the legwork but it is your partner who is signing the statement of truth and should it ever get to an actual hearing, it is your partner who will have to appear.

There is a box on the AoS that says "Defendant's fullname if different from the name given on the claim form"

It has just occurred to me that we have misunderstood that box, and it potentially means if my partner's name has changed (i.e. marriage). We thought it was where you name the driver if different to the defendant.

I'm sorry, I am am finding this whole process confusing and obfuscating. I don't know if that is deliberate to make it harder to deal with these sorts of matters. God knows how an elderly or illiterate person would manage.

My partner has not put anything in the Defence box.

Honestly I don't see how it would make a difference - someone had to have been driving for the car to be there. If my partner has to appear, than that is what it will have to be.

Coupon-mad

I already replied about that. We cross posted. Yes, you misunderstood. No harm done.

No-one will appear in court if your partner gets this struck out...and we win 99% of cases anyway. No risk (No CCJ & no huge costs even if the odd person is unlucky and loses. They'd just pay...less than the claim).

This is all far easier than you think.

Le_Kirk

Who is name on the claim form?  You or your partner?

NeverBackDown

Coupon-mad said:

I already replied about that. We cross posted. Yes, you misunderstood. No harm done.

No-one will appear in court if you get this struck out...

This is all far easier than you think.

Ok thanks for your help - yes we cross posted

I think I'm getting it now. My partner can name me as the driver, and then add "and the driver" to 'were visiting family members' (as this is the case - we were both in the car together). But ultimately it is my partner who will have to appear, is that correct?

Also I will add the persuasive appeal judgment by HHJ Murch

Coupon-mad

I did not say your partner names you.

I did not say they put "and the driver".

B789

Your partner just uses the template defence. They state that they are the RK but were not the driver. They are under no obligation to name the driver so no need to add your name or even mention you.

The only extra bit you add to the template defence is the extra citations, starting with the most important one by HHJ Murch. They should be added just after your para #3.

If you take your time to try and comprehend what is being advised, you will hopefully get this thrown out at allocation stage.

NeverBackDown

B789 said:

Your partner just uses the template defence. They state that they are the RK but were not the driver. They are under no obligation to name the driver so no need to add your name or even mention you.

The only extra bit you add to the template defence is the extra citations, starting with the most important one by HHJ Murch. They should be added just after your para #3.

If you take your time to try and comprehend what is being advised, you will hopefully get this thrown out at allocation stage.

Just cross-posted, thanks for the advice - I will move the extra citations to just after para #3 and edit my previous comment

NeverBackDown

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXX

Between

National Parking Management Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXX                   

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver. The driver was the Defendant’s partner. The Defendant was a passenger in the vehicle.

3. It is admitted that on XXXXX the Defendant’s vehicle was parked at the location shown in the photos on the PCN, although the postcode on the PCN and subsequent Claim Form is incorrect. The Defendant’s vehicle was parked on the road adjacent to XXXXX.

4. Recent persuasive Appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) 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. 

IMAGE HHJ MURCH

5. 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:

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

IMAGE PARALLEL PARKING

(ii) Similarly, in January 2023 (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 DJ SPRAGUE

6. A valid Visitor’s parking permit was given by an occupier and leaseholder of XXXXX and clearly displayed on the dashboard of the Defendant’s vehicle. There were no available visitor parking spaces in the car park of XXXXX.

7. The Defendant’s vehicle was parked on the main road adjacent to XXXXX. This appeared to be an ordinary public road that would commonly be maintained by the Local Authority. There was inadequate signage indicating that it was a private road. The Defendant’s vehicle was also parked in good faith with reassurance of the occupier and leaseholder of XXXXX that the Defendant’s vehicle could be parked there.

8. It is denied that the Defendant or driver were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the occupier and leaseholder of XXXXX.

9. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors.

10. There are issues with the signage the Claimant uses which are:

(i) The amount of the PCN (£100) is in small font, and not prominent (Lord Denning's "Red Hand" rule).

(ii) The sign is forbidding and you cannot contract to do that which is forbidden. If you're not permitted to park there, then you cannot contract to park there for an arbitrary sum.

(iii) The sign is placed in a misleading location that can be construed to indicate the XXXXX car park, and makes no indication that it is for the road where the Defendant’s vehicle was parked.

(iv) The Claimant has since replaced the signage, and the Defendant will rely on both to show that the Claimant recognises that the signage was wholly inadequate at the point of issue.

11. Accordingly it is denied that:

(i) There was any agreement between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.

(ii) The Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

12. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £70 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

13. Whatever the allegation turns out to be, it must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished). In addition to the fact that the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated, additionally the interest is inflated in two ways:

(i).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if £170 was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

(ii). Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. I have discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%)  and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.  I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit.

Coupon-mad

I think move the stuff about the Chan judgment and the other 3 orders up, to be paragraph 2 onwards and bring all the facts (and relevant subheading) together under that.

Add a subheading under para 1 that says: 

Preliminary matter: the claim should be struck out

And don't forget to add the pages of HHJ Murch's persuasive judgment!  No point showing the 3 non-persuasive bog standard orders and yet miss out the image of the 'silver bullet' killer appeal case transcript by HHJ Murch!

That image is all over the forum every single day...

Remove this as it looks bad (looks like: 'there were no spaces so we parked anywhere and weren't in the car park'):

There were no available visitor parking spaces in the car park of XXXXX.

You also have this twice so remove the FIRST one:

"The Defendant’s vehicle was parked on the main road adjacent to XXXXX". 

NeverBackDown

Coupon-mad said:

I think move the stuff about the Chan judgment and the other 3 orders up, to be paragraph 2 onwards and bring all the facts (and relevant subheading) together under that.

Add a subheading under para 1 that says: 

Preliminary matter: the claim should be struck out

And don't forget to add the pages of HHJ Murch's persuasive judgment!  No point showing the 3 non-persuasive bog standard orders and yet miss out the image of the 'silver bullet' killer appeal case transcript by HHJ Murch!

That image is all over the forum every single day...

Remove this as it looks bad (looks like: 'there were no spaces so we parked anywhere and weren't in the car park'):

There were no available visitor parking spaces in the car park of XXXXX.

You also have this twice so remove the FIRST one:

"The Defendant’s vehicle was parked on the main road adjacent to XXXXX". 

Thanks Coupon-mad

Should the defendant contact the Court and clear up the misunderstanding with the AoS?