Court Claim Received from HX & Gladstones

Worzel_

Thanks, I received this hilarious letter from Gladstones that they're not willing to come to the hearing: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rtK0WxD9DT1N7bs69NXN7nnC0-eGufgs/view?usp=sharing

I scanned only the sign exhibits because the rest are same as before. I included the signs because they've introduced a new sign in their WS on the very last page that was not included with their claim. My defence hinged on the fact they didn't show the £100 charge on the sign and now they've introduced a sign with the £100 charge line.

Gr1pr

Gladstones never attend hearings, standard stuff, no surprise  there,  nothing to see 

Expect an advocate to attend instead 

Coupon-mad

This is all normal. Did you not see it in other completed Gladstones threads? They will help you prepare.

Worzel_

Ok thanks, any comments on them introducing a new sign in their WS that wasn't in their (modified) claim.

Coupon-mad

You can raise that when it's your turn to speak at the hearing.

Worzel_

In my WS should I focus on inadequate signage at the car park? (this despite the fact there was definitely inadequate signage in their claim, they didn't include any sign with the £100 charge).

At the site I came in following the red direction and there are two signs marked in purple and yellow:



The purple sign being most prominent does not mention the £100 charge:




The yellow sign which can be hidden by tall vehicles does mention a £100 charge. This is the sign they have added to their WS on the final page (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rtK0WxD9DT1N7bs69NXN7nnC0-eGufgs/view?usp=sharing):




I'm asking about this as I see it is what won it for @imulsion and here is the relevant paragraph from his WS:

12. Inadequate signage: I have observed a lack of clear and visible signage regarding

parking regulations. The only signs that are visible at the entrance to the car park,

which is otherwise unmarked, give no information whatsoever as to the nature of the

Terms and Conditions, merely that Terms and Conditions apply. Even the text which

provides this limited information is very small and not clearly legible from inside a

vehicle. (See Exhibit 05.) The only sign which does provide information relating to

the Terms and Conditions is located off to the left of the entrance, obscured from view

behind parked cars, and printed in such small type as to be illegible unless very close

(see Exhibit 06). The poor placement and legibility of these signs made it extremely

difficult for anybody to be aware of or to comply with the parking rules. This is in

stark contrast to the highly visible, clear and legible signs seen in ParkingEye v

Beavis [2015] UKSC67 (“the Beavis case”). (See Exhibit 07.)

Gr1pr

Signage pictures are never included with a pcn , it's irrelevant until any appeal or claim, the Signage on the day are what they are using to contract with the driver,  by conduct , so if a driver or keeper or hirer is disputing an invoice,  its important for both sides,  as evidence,  as it is in your case 

So your WS plus Exhibits bundle should definitely be concentrating on signage,  maps, paperwork,  laws,  codes of practice and anything else that is relevant,  typically up to 50 pages long

Worzel_

I don't understand your response @Gr1pr I'm not talking about PCN, they only included one sign as exhibit in their claim and it didn't show a £100 charge.

I'm asking because perhaps me introducing the signage with the £100 charge puts it "in play" whereas if I could get the judge to strike out them adding that sign at the WS stage - it would obviously be better for me.

NorbertVonTishenbaum

Worzel_ said:

I don't understand your response @Gr1pr I'm not talking about PCN, they only included one sign as exhibit in their claim and it didn't show a £100 charge.

I'm asking because perhaps me introducing the signage with the £100 charge puts it "in play" whereas if I could get the judge to strike out them adding that sign at the WS stage - it would obviously be better for me.

Hi Worzel, I’m really new to this and just starting off the process myself. 

I understand where you’re coming from. However when I read your comments, my head went to: “when did you take the photographs? When did they take the photographs? Who is right? Clearly there’s a discrepancy and this just really bolsters a lack of attention to details as far as their compliance with a code of practice? Maybe if their signage varies from site to site, or even on the same site, it can’t be abiding by being clear and comprehensible (or whatever the wording in the relevant legislation / codes of practice might be)?”

at the end of the day, ur on the hook for up to £100. Ur in it to win it (or lose!!!). So who gives a flier (we’re all different of course and you may not want to do that. But ur arguing a technicality on their compliance with legislation / codes of practice). 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said

back un June 2024:

You'll be using the ALTERNATIVE defence linked in the 3rd paragraph of the Template Defence itself, and underneath the CEL v Chan images (as shown in the link) you can continue with paragraph 5 like this:

5. It is denied that the Claimant can pursue the registered keeper pursuant to the POFA 2012 because this Claimant's consumer notices are likely to fail to comply with Schedule 4 and the sum pursued exceeds the 'maximum sum' that Act sets.

5.1. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

5.2.  PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was presumably for £100 (as pleaded in the POC). However, the claimant's current claim is for £160. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed.

5.3. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs - if incurred at the point of claim dismissal - to the Defendant.

5.4.  As the claim (fully disputed in any event) should only be for the amount of £100 as stated on the original PCN, the interest calculated should only be on that amount. By also calculating interest on the purported £60 "contractual" escalation fee (which is, in itself, an abuse of process and POFA breach) the Claimant has not only acted unreasonably but also abused the courts process and breached the following CPRs:

Further CPR Breaches over and above those covered by paragraphs 2-4 above:

• CPR 1.1 - The Overriding Objective:

• The claim is not being dealt with justly or proportionately. The excessive amount claimed puts the defendant at a disadvantage, increases unnecessary costs, and is disproportionate to the original charge.

• CPR 3.4 - Power to Strike Out:

• CPR 3.4(2)(a): The claim for £160 has no reasonable grounds, as it exceeds the lawful amount stipulated by PoFA 4(5).

• CPR 3.4(2)(b): The claim represents an abuse of the court’s process by attempting to claim an amount not legally recoverable, thus obstructing the just disposal of proceedings.

• CPR 27.14 - Costs on the Small Claims Track:

• CPR 27.14(2)(g): The claimant’s behaviour in pursuing an excessive and unlawful amount is unreasonable, warranting the claim to be struck out.

6.  To the best of the Defendant's knowledge it is denied that any breach of any (prominently advertised) term occurred due to any conduct of a driver of the vehicle, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all aspects, facts and alleged liability. The POC is so sparse as to be incoherent; utterly failing to specify any alleged breach(es) despite the fact the Claimant has a PCN file and it would be easy to elaborate concise facts.  The allegation could be anything from 'no stopping' or unauthorised parking, to an overstay of allowed time, to parking outside of a bay, or perhaps failing to display a ticket, or maybe allegedly failing to pay, or not paying enough, or failing to enter a VRM, or a keypad failure (apparently a favourite trap of this car park operator over the years).  The Defendant cannot guess and is left unable to admit or deny these non-existent allegations. The claim should be struck out.

(rest of template defence from para 4 re-numbered to suit, follows)

You'll want to reiterate the above in your WS and have Chan and Akande (the latter is a newer appeal case) as exhibits. Plus the other exhibits that the NEWBIES thread lists.

I WOULDN'T include close ups of signs, as it's making their case for them.

Recent good WS were in threads by:

@Harry77

@imulsion

@Defendant911