Claim Form Gladstone's solicitors Filing defence

Johnson2015

Did you submit in time? I am submitting tomorrow. Need to revise a little more. 🤓

Coupon-mad

Plonker25 said:

Sorry for the above posts, a bit confusing!

so, this is my final edited version......

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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  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 authority.

3. A 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

Chan Case images

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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, however, it is unknown who the driver was due to length of time since the PCN was issued.  The vehicle has more than one user.

5. The Defendant does not remember on the day in question who was driving the vehicle so cannot state the reason for the vehicle being parked in this location and as to why a PCN was issued.  The defendant does not recall receiving a PCN on the windscreen nor do they recall receiving any correspondence with regards to this PCN.  This PCN was issued nearly 4 years ago.

6.  The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the sum claimed and, save as expressly stated, makes no admissions except that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

7.  In an effort to look at the supposed 'contract' (not supplied in any pre-action correspondence) the Defendant used the only factual hint in the POC and Googled 'Elder Court Saw Mill Way'. Street view images show a residential estate with a complete lack of entrance signage or signs adjacent to the various parking bays.  An already faded pale green/white 'PCM' sign was found in the image (from 8 years ago) on a wall next to a far more prominent red prohibition 'No Parking' sign but this is alongside a roadway kerb.  There is no evidence from the Claimant as to where the vehicle stopped, how long for (could have been unloading, or picking up a passenger, not parking) nor even what the terms on their sign said and if that could be seen/read from a driver's seat. 

8.  Given the prohibitive nature of most PCM signage seen in their other Gladstones roboclaim cases and the images seen on Google Streetview, the Defendant takes the point that the wording of the Claimant's signs typically forbids parking. As such, there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.  Accordingly, the Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked in breach of any term (whatever that term might have been) and denies that a contract with PCM to pay £100/£160 (or any sum) would have been agreed.

9.  Assuming the Defendant's 'detective work' is right in locating the land to shed some light on the case, they will rely on decisions in similar residential estate parking cases including these involving the same Claimant: B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B (£914.67 claimed) B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W (£1559.82) and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L (£1067.15) which were all heard together at High Wycombe in 2016 and PCM's claims were dismissed due to specifically inadequate signage. Other similar facts residential parking cases include PACE Recovery and Storage Ltd v Lengyel. C7GF6E3R (Manchester Court, 2017) and Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E which was heard on appeal at Oxford Court and thus it is a persuasive decision.

10.  In the seemingly unlikely event that this cut-and-paste roboclaim progresses past allocation stage, the Claimant is put to strict proof of all allegations including but not limited to keeper liability, landowner authority, maps and proof of adequate signage capable of forming a contract on the material date and their evidence of a parking period which allegedly breached a 'relevant contract or obligation'.

11. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

12. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.


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

.................continue as per template

Looks fine.

You didn't have a bespoke paragraph 6 so obviously the. template para 6 onwards just needed renumbering like the above!

Nellymoser

Letters from PPC not received please consider supporting this.

So many people don't receive 1st and/or 2nd pcn but the £170 payment due letter often manages to drop through letter boxes.

PPCs always claim discounted rate/full rate pcns/court claim letters were sent as dated though they offer no evidence to prove this. Since they CHOOSE NOT to provide evidence of their posting we must continue to press gov to ensure they do and see it included in the new Parking CoP.
Please sign/share @jmccabe petition closes 22nd june 2024.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652355
Require communications from Private Parking companies to be traceable/trackable
Thank you and good luck

Plonker25

Johnson2015 said:

Did you submit in time? I am submitting tomorrow. Need to revise a little more. 🤓

Hello Johnson2015, I'm submitting today

Plonker25

Coupon-mad said:

Plonker25 said:

Sorry for the above posts, a bit confusing!

so, this is my final edited version......

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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  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 authority.

3. A 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

Chan Case images

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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, however, it is unknown who the driver was due to length of time since the PCN was issued.  The vehicle has more than one user.

5. The Defendant does not remember on the day in question who was driving the vehicle so cannot state the reason for the vehicle being parked in this location and as to why a PCN was issued.  The defendant does not recall receiving a PCN on the windscreen nor do they recall receiving any correspondence with regards to this PCN.  This PCN was issued nearly 4 years ago.

6.  The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the sum claimed and, save as expressly stated, makes no admissions except that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

7.  In an effort to look at the supposed 'contract' (not supplied in any pre-action correspondence) the Defendant used the only factual hint in the POC and Googled 'Elder Court Saw Mill Way'. Street view images show a residential estate with a complete lack of entrance signage or signs adjacent to the various parking bays.  An already faded pale green/white 'PCM' sign was found in the image (from 8 years ago) on a wall next to a far more prominent red prohibition 'No Parking' sign but this is alongside a roadway kerb.  There is no evidence from the Claimant as to where the vehicle stopped, how long for (could have been unloading, or picking up a passenger, not parking) nor even what the terms on their sign said and if that could be seen/read from a driver's seat. 

8.  Given the prohibitive nature of most PCM signage seen in their other Gladstones roboclaim cases and the images seen on Google Streetview, the Defendant takes the point that the wording of the Claimant's signs typically forbids parking. As such, there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.  Accordingly, the Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked in breach of any term (whatever that term might have been) and denies that a contract with PCM to pay £100/£160 (or any sum) would have been agreed.

9.  Assuming the Defendant's 'detective work' is right in locating the land to shed some light on the case, they will rely on decisions in similar residential estate parking cases including these involving the same Claimant: B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B (£914.67 claimed) B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W (£1559.82) and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L (£1067.15) which were all heard together at High Wycombe in 2016 and PCM's claims were dismissed due to specifically inadequate signage. Other similar facts residential parking cases include PACE Recovery and Storage Ltd v Lengyel. C7GF6E3R (Manchester Court, 2017) and Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E which was heard on appeal at Oxford Court and thus it is a persuasive decision.

10.  In the seemingly unlikely event that this cut-and-paste roboclaim progresses past allocation stage, the Claimant is put to strict proof of all allegations including but not limited to keeper liability, landowner authority, maps and proof of adequate signage capable of forming a contract on the material date and their evidence of a parking period which allegedly breached a 'relevant contract or obligation'.

11. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

12. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.


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

.................continue as per template

Looks fine.

You didn't have a bespoke paragraph 6 so obviously the. template para 6 onwards just needed renumbering like the above!

Thanks Coupon-mad, I'll file today and keep you updated.

KofKof95

how are the PCM s*um getting away with this I have the same similar issue also where apparently I breach their contract

KeithP

@Plonker25, back in February you told us you would keep us updated.

What happened?

Plonker25

I have a positive update, which I shall share with you guys later!

Coupon-mad

Plonker25 said:

I have a positive update, which I shall share with you guys later!

Yes please!

Plonker25

Sorry for the delay!

After sending in my defence, I received a letter (12/8/24) from the courts saying something the along the lines of:

It is ordered that the Claimant has to file a further particulars of claim complying with CPR 16.4(1)(a)

The particulars of claim must have the contract attached.

Why the contract was in breach.

Details of where the breach occurred.

Precise calculation of any claim for each breach.

This had to be submitted by 27th August 24.

The Claimant then filed with the timeframe and a copy of an updated particulars of claim was received from the courts.

9th October I received a letter from the courts stating the case had been struck out as the particulars of claim did not comply with the recent order:

Copy of the contract is not attached.

Doesn't set out precise time of breach.

How long the vehicle was parked for.

Doesn't set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory interest.

Hope this gives you an idea on why the case was struck out.

Thank you all!