County court claim

NeilCr · 15 June 2018 at 11:23AM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

1 - complain and see if the pub will simply cancel it for you

As you are going to the pub tonight I'd definitely start here. Personally, I'd go with ask nicely before moving on to complain, though!

harrrymischa · 19 June 2018 at 3:56PM

Hi All,

The pub have told me its too late for them to help me with the claim but have also said "From day one we have had numerous signs around the car park and inside the business. The only change has been the font that we have used in the signage." which I will use in my defence as the alleged breach happened in 2016. how am I able to defend myself without evidence of the signage at the time of the event and knowing the fonts have changed.

I'm going to approach the CCTV if the case goes to court. I have read a lot of information that says footage gets deleted every couple of months so I'm not hopeful there will be footage of me from 2 years ago! (worth a shot I know anyway)

PLEASE - can someone link me to any threads that may be able to help my case!! I've looked through the newbies and only 1 or 2 relate to my own but I feel I'm lacking in certain areas:
- ANPR cases
- Patron of a business at the site of the claim
- Gladstone's
- Court action 2 years later

Thanks!!

The_Deep · 19 June 2018 at 4:19PM

The pub is lying, get your own back, write some very bad stuff on their Facebook page and in TripAdvisor, they will hate you for it, but they might get wise to the fact that getting in bed with a scammer could give them a nasty itch.

Redx · 19 June 2018 at 5:04PM

a simple search of this forum found dozens of gladstones court claims including anpr ones etc , so I have no idea why you cannot use the forum search box effectively

such as

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5828279

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5840548

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5768025

so look through them and cherry pick points that help your own defence, plus look at what they are saying , why they say what they say , how it is laid out, plus how it tries to make the claimant jump numerous legal hurdles in order for them to win in court

any failure such as no landowner authority, failing POFA2012 or any other laws , poor signage , CoP failures etc means they would lose if they pay the court fee and take it to court

at this initial defence stage no evidence , no photos and no witness statements are required , they come much , much later down the court process

also note that this stage is simply titled DEFENCE

not DEFENCE STATEMENT or any other title

also SAR gladrags for the evidence you require, under the new GDPR , INCLUDING SIGNAGE , LANDOWNER AUTHORITY , ALL PAPERWORK LIKE PCN,S ETC TOO

read the umpteen posts by UMKOMAAS for advice on turning off SMART PUNCTUATION on an apple device , he has posted this advice numerous times on here

harrrymischa · 30 June 2018 at 9:11PM

Thanks for those threads... very interesting!

Please can someone take a quick proof read, give me some feedback?

It is acknowledged that the defendant, XXXXX was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. The defendant is unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If the defendant does not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the court will excuse my inexperience.

The claimant has delayed this claim by 2 years. The alleged breach happened in XXXXX 2016. The defendant is attempting to submit a defence based on an event 2 years ago. A great quantity of changes can happen over the period of 2 years for instance the claimant!!!8217;s signage. The claimant has not provided the defendant any proof of the signs displayed at the time of the incident. The defence is at a disadvantage by having to try a recollect the incident as well as not being given any reference to this paramount piece of evidence of signage in the car park in Septetmber 2016 from the claimant.
Based on the current signage it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs are insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
The current sparse, unlit signs in this car park which are not at a low height at the entrance on the driver!!!8217;s side and free from obstruction which is compliant with all industry standards and to the BPA!!!8217;s code of practice state to avoid a Parking Charge, users of the service must not exceed a parking time of 1 hour or be patrons to the on site businesses which include the XXXXX public house the defendant was visiting at the specified date and time the defendant has stated.

CCTV evidence will show at the time of the alleged breach of contract the defendant was with her sister and friend at the XXXXX Public House for 1 hour and 30 minutes.
The defendant has acknowledged that she was a patron of the XXXX Public house at the time of the alleged parking breach and it is the claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a 'PCN' that was not properly issued from the outset.

The claimant had been a patron to the XXXXX Public house since 2015 prior to parking enforcement being introduced to the car park in question. The claimant had prior to this allegation been parking at the site without any restricted time limit. The claimant has not provided any evidence stating when the parking terms and conditions were implemented and what signage was apparent at the date of the alleged breach that made drivers aware of the changes. Without evidence of the signage at the date of the alleged breach how can the assumption be made that the defendant is liable to pay this fee if there was not adequate signage regarding a change to terms and if a grace period is given for regular visitors to adjust to these changes.
The allegation as it appears on the parking charge notice that the 'vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and shows no evidence of a patron of the XXXXX Public House. This does not prove actual parking of the vehicle and is merely an image of the vehicle in transit. The allegation is open to abuse by the claimants as it can be used in all cases regardless of the actual situation, this displays how the claimants claim is completely generic and not specific.
The defendant was told for the first time via email that if a complaint had been made at the time of receipt of the parking charge notice (PCN), then the businesses on site (including the XXXXXX public house) had the authority to cancel the charge, but that it may now be 'too late'.
The defendant avers that no signs and no paperwork from the Claimant gave any hint to registered keeper recipients, that the onsite businesses could very easily cancel a charge. By failing to comply with the BPA Code of practice signage and then withholding the XXXX Public house route of cancellation/complaint from a consumer are 'misleading omissions' of material facts. These breaches of the CPUTRs 2008 have caused the unfair PCN, prevented its cancellation before proceeding started and this conduct by the claimant has severely disadvantaged the defendant.
The Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information' (the ICO Code). This is both a specific Data Protection and BPA Code of Practice breach.
The ICO Code applies to all ANPR systems, and states that the private sector is required to follow it, in order to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the BPA are required to comply fully with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and all ICO rules and guidelines, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to the following, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise on all counts:
a) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
b) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
c) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR as a secondary data processing system at this site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine patrons)
d) Failure to consider the number of complaints from the XXX Public house and other businesses, which would have alerted this Claimant to the fact that their 'ANPR system' and woeful sign was not being seen by all genuine patrons and was therefore a wholly inappropriate method of data capture, which was unreliable at best and negligent (or even deliberately misleading) at worst, being the main cause of unfair parking charges against genuine patrons.
e) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data captured on both would be used.
f) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the DPA. At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for, and what a data subject's rights are, to obtain all images and data held via a Subject Access Request from the Claimant.
g) This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations and has breached principle 1 (at least) of the DPA, as well as the BPA Code of Practice
The Claimant!!!8217;s solicitors are known to be a serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. I believe HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims. I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Car Park Management and Gladstone!!!8217;s. no proof has been provided.
The claimant did not send the defendant a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. As Gladstone!!!8217;s are a firm of solicitors who!!!8217;s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions. Because of this I am missing the following:
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which their client intends to rely.
c) How the !!!8220;charge amount!!!8221; of 100 pounds has been calculated and justified.
d) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
As Gladstone!!!8217;s are a firm of solicitors who!!!8217;s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.
The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centers in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).
The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant!!!8217;s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, location, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.
This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The Claimant is attempting to claim additional charges such as solicitors and legal costs of £312.55. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued.
This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary because the in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.
On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their !!!8216;roboclaim!!!8217; particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and !!!8216;providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.!!!8217;
The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract therefore the claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, even after being requested and the claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of a contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.
With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. This case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.
The defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time and thus costs in dealing with this matter.
I would like the Court to take note that the defendant was then aggressively harassed by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite not being liable for these made up costs.

I confirm that the facts in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad · 30 June 2018 at 10:38PM

You have a mish mash of defence points and ''I did this''. Remove the latter.

harrrymischa · 6 July 2018 at 12:23PM

Hi,

I've made my final draft. what was the email I send the defence to?

Coupon-mad · 6 July 2018 at 1:46PM

I assume your actual defence is numbered?

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) print your Defence
2) sign it
3) scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.

harrrymischa · 27 July 2018 at 2:55PM

Hi All,

I've had a directions questionnaire response to my defence.
what are my next steps?

Thanks

KeithP · 27 July 2018 at 4:00PM

harrrymischa wrote: »

Hi All,

I've had a directions questionnaire response to my defence.
what are my next steps?

Thanks

On 15th June you told us:

I've read the second post of newbies...

Your need to do it again.

In there you will find comprehensive guidance on exactly how to answer every single question on that form.

County court claim

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free