Claim Form for a PCN Nearly 6 Years Ago

Desperational

Please help, I have received a claim form from from NPM, with Gladstones acting on their behalf , for a PCN in April 2019, claim form dated 13/03/24 Which is nearly 6 years ago.

With it being so long ago, I really cant remember who was driving the vehicle at the time, and I do not recall receiving any parking notices, NTK letters.  I recently  became aware of it after appealing another parking charge for a different location, Which Gladstones had been appointed on.

I have read the Newbies sticky thread, and sent the AOS via MCOL on the 25/03, as well as done a CPR 31.14 request to the solicitors on the 27/03, and now trying to draft my defence.

I can not remember from that long ago, weather it was me or my ex partner who was driving the vehicle, but after going to the location, to get pictures of the signage it states CCTV,ANPR and mobile patrols are in operation at all times. Do they usually have CCTV on each parking bay?

I do know that we would have been in that location, dropping of my 2 year old daughter to the childminder who was attending the church mums and tots group, so would not have been parked there for a long time, unless she needed a change of clothes, and with her being disabled (albeit at that particular time we did not have a blue badge) parking close to the church was imperative.

The POC does not even state a time of parking and is stating driver/keeper of the vehicle, is this standard wording if they don't know who the driver was?

I am also not sure of the charges they have applied, are reasonable £100 for the PCN and then £70 contractual costs, interest @8 % per annum and the, £50.00 legal reps costs plus court fee. 
Who pays the legal costs and court fee if its won? 

Sorry for all the questions, I realise they are probably covered in other threads, but I do not have long to draft my defence, and as a single mother of a disabled daughter I don't have very much time on my hands to be able to look through each case on its own merits ect, although I have read the Chan case but not sure of the POC will warrant the same wording, and reference to that case. 

I am very conscious of making sure everything is correct, and am really anxious about defending it, but as I don't have that type of money to throw away, I figured it would give it a go as hopefully I don't have anything to loose.

nopcns

Having submitted your AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th April to submit your defence. That's plenty of time nd there is nothing to "draft" for your defence. It is already there in the template defence thread and you only need to add your little bit. In order to know whether you should include the CEL v Chan preliminary matter, we would need to see the PoC.

A claim can be filed up to 6 years after the event. Is the date of the claim more or less than 6 years after the event?

The CCTV/ANPR reference is to the fact that the entry and exit time to the car park was recorded and they are basing their allegation of a breach based on those times. The claim amount is typical of this scamming businesses penchant for trying to mug victims into funding their £billion industry. The £70 "contractual costs" will not be allowed by a judge if you were to lose the claim. However, they are easily beatable.

The losing side pays the £50 legal fee and the £35 court fee. Invariably, if the intellectually malnourished roboclaim firm decides to progress all the way to hearing, they end up losing anyway. They are more reliant on their victims being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will capitulate and pay up or ignore the claim where they then get a CCJ by default. You are here now and that is not going to happen.

If your daughter has a recognised disability, whether or not she has a blue badge, makes the PPC liable to take into consideration that disability once they have been informed of it. The Equality Act 2010 applies.

It is highly possible that NPM did not comply with PoFA 6 years ago and as they don't know who the driver (and neither do you) it is highly likely that they cannot transfer liability for this to the keeper. So, when adding your bit to the defence, do not try to identify yourself as the driver. It will be the Claimants burden to prove who was driving if the NtK was not PoFA compliant. They are not allowed to assume, presume or infer the that keeper must have been the driver. If Gladrags have sent you a copy of the original NtK, please show that (both sides and all dates showing).

Have you been back to the location and asked the landowner to get this PCN cancelled?

Please show us the PoC and your own edited paragraph for the template defence. Depending on the PoC, you may or may not need the CEL v Chan preliminary matter. We don't need to see the whole template defence but it is all required when you are ready to send it as a pdf attachment by email to the CNBC.

Follow the advice and you won't be paying a penny to these scammers.

Umkomaas

I have received a claim form from from NPM, with Gladstones acting on their behalf , for a PCN in April 2019, claim form dated 13/03/24 Which is nearly 6 years ago.

I think you'll find it's not yet 5 years old. 

Desperational

Thank you so much for your response, I am really sorry its not yet 5 years years old (my major mistake).

Unfortunately I don't have the NTK from Gladstones,  I will try and upload the POC but have read somewhere on the forum that as a newbie that may not be possible immediately, so they are as follows encase I cant upload.

POC 
The driver of the vehicle with registration xxxxxxx (the vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated one the signage (the 'contract') at xxxxx, on the xx/04/2019 thus incurring a parking charge (the 'PCN'). The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue.  The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with the statutory interest of £65.xx pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.  

My Daughter does have a recognised disability, so would I mention this and the act in the defence, in my bit. 

The location is a block of residential flats, and I don't really want to spend money finding out who the landowners are to try and get the pcn removed, if it turns out to be pointless, had it been an organisation/shop ect I most certainly would do, but open to any advice. 

I have been back and taken pictures of the signage and road/parking bays, and a video of the road ect in the daylight, to see how clear the signage is now, however I was on my own,  so will need to go back with someone to take the video as thought it may cause another contention! if it is used for evidence.

I look forward to hearing from you








 

Coupon-mad

Just use the defence everyone uses in Gladstones cases.  See other recent threads and the Template Defence 3rd paragraph too.

nopcns

You submit the template defence with the added "Preliminary Matter" as per @hharry100. It is the CEL v Chan judgment with the embedded images of the transcript.

Just show us the bit that you edit, not the whole defence (do include everything in it when you send as a pdf attachment by email).

Desperational

Please see the Draft Defence and Preliminary matters??? Anxiously waiting on your response

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, but does not recall who the driver was, given the date being nearly 5 years ago.

3. The Defendants vehicle would have been parked in Salem Lane, Wellingborough, as the Defendants daughter would have been being dropped off to the childminder who was attending the Mums and Tots group at the church. The Defendants Daughter has a disability of Down Syndrome, Low Muscle Tone and Hyper flexibility, therefore close proximity to the location was required.  The Defendant also notes that the ‘Land/Road’ which forms the basis of the POC consists of a relatively small number of unmarked parking spaces, which made it hard to distinguish between the pavement and a parking space. Given this lack of clarity and the fact there were no clear signs when the Defendant arrived and parked, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem rule.

Preliminary Matters:  ????

4. On the 27/03/2024 the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Gladstone Solicitors Ltd. I have evidence of this fact in the form of a certificate of posting. I requested the Claimant provide copies of all the documents that they will use in court for inspection. Copy of letter dated 27/03/2024 and certificate of posting attached.

5. Gladstone Solicitors have not sent any of these documents to the defendant and therefore the defendant requests the court to order the documents, and also seeks permission to amend its defence accordingly and the cost to be met by the claimant.

Breach of Equality Law

6.       The Claimant cannot claim to not knowing about an individual’s needs before imposing terms nor can PPCs try to blame the individual for not appealing. As per the ‘Services, Public functions and Associations: Statutory Code of Practice’, issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), this is a clear case of indirect discrimination which is defined as ‘when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage’.  The code is clear that this is unlawful as per the statement, ‘Indirect discrimination is unlawful, even where the discriminatory effect of the provision, criterion or practice is not intentional, unless it can be objectively justified’.

7. 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 is on par with 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.

8. 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 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Coupon-mad

That's not the one you were advised to use.  It's linked in the Template Defence 3rd paragraph, like I said.  Then others also advised you which defence to use. 

Desperational

So sorry, is this the link on Template Defence 3rd paragraph you mean? with my edited section, and questions weather I should add the other preliminary matters? please ignore sequencing numbers 

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, based on 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 the defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle from such a long time ago.

 

5. The Defendants vehicle would have been located in Salem Lane, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, NN8 4JT for a short period of time, as the Defendants daughter would have been dropped off to the childminder who regularly attended the weekly mums and tots group at the Church. The Defendants daughter has a disability of Down Syndrome, Low Muscle Tone and Hyper flexibility, therefore proximity to the location would have been imperative. The defendant does not recall who was driving the vehicle from nearly 5 years ago.

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. 

Insert of the Chan Judgement

4

5

 Other Preliminary Matters??????

6. On the 27/03/2024 the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Gladstone Solicitors Ltd. I have evidence of this fact in the form of a certificate of posting. I requested the Claimant provide copies of all the documents that they will use in court for inspection. Copy of letter dated 27/03/2024 and certificate of posting attached.

7. Gladstone Solicitors have not sent any of these documents to the defendant and therefore the defendant requests the court to order the documents, and also seeks permission to amend its defence accordingly and the cost to be met by the claimant.

Desperational

Hi all, please help, every time I log into this site it keeps saying an administrator has requested I change the password? is that normal?

KeithP

Desperational said:

Hi all, please help, every time I log into this site it keeps saying an administrator has requested I change the password? is that normal?

No it is not normal.

Perhaps you should report your issue on the Site feedback board.