Court claim form - Gateway House

Rhino18

So just posting sections with comments or that I have amended slightly

1. The Claimant's sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC) having briefly read S69 of CCs act they are permitted to add the 8%, therefore is this appropriate to our case?. This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

3. There can be no keeper liability in this case. At the time of this parking charge, this Claimant did not use the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and has confirmed as much in their own Notice to Keeper dated XXXXX which was explicitly headed 'Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA) – Issued on private land'. The Claimant knew, or should have known, that it cannot hold a registered keeper liable where the mandatory statutory conditions have not been met. Furthermore, the Claimant's own Particulars of Claim directly contradicts their own Notice to Keeper by purporting to rely on PoFA Schedule 4, thereby misleading the court. I can't really include this section at all as I have not seen the NTK to make this claim? As previously mentioned that's not to say it wasn't received and disposed of by my wife but referring to something she can't remember seeing feels counter productive.
4. The solicitor signatory of the statement of truth is knowingly or negligently misleading the court and Defendant by citing that law. Further, this claim includes fake (double recovery) 'damages' and pre-loaded interest. S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary power to award simple interest but this POC assumes 8% interest (calculated on the whole enhanced quantum from an unspecified date) on the top line of the sum claimed, unjustly enriching them or Moorside Legal in bulk, on every undefended claim. This conduct is an abuse of the court process. The Claimant has not applied for relief from sanctions to amend the POC. Again, having read S69 it would appear they are permitted to do this so unsure if it should be included?

Slight amendment to this paragraph

6.  It is denied that a term was breached for the following reason; to form a contract, there must be an offer. An offer must be specific, complete and capable of acceptance.
The claimants particulars of claim state it is for an unpaid 'parking charge' and the breach was 'no stopping'. In these circumstances no offer capable of acceptance was made and therefore no contract was formed. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different.

All other paragraphs felt appropriate so I have made no amendments or omissions.

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

1. Everything is relevant to your case. We know what we are doing. Obviously they can (under court discretion) have up to 8% interest if a judge lets them at a hearing but that never happens and the point is they can't pre-load a claim.
2. Come on, trust us. I've been posting here for 20 years! We don't even need to see the NTK to know that UKCPS didn't use the POFA at this site.

Rhino18

Thanks For coming back, happy to trust you as i've seen how often you've helped people on here but just wanted to double check.

Happy with the slight adjustment to para 6?

Coupon-mad

Yes - it read fine. 🙂