Gladstone Court Claim - Visitors Bay - Help

1. I am xxxxx, of xxxx, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On 28th August 2017, I was visiting a friend who is a resident at xxxxxx. I parked my vehicle registration no. xxxxxx in the car park.

3. I parked the vehicle with permission from a resident at approximately 23:00pm. The resident had run out of visitor permits as so was not able to provide one for parking the vehicle, however, they were in the process of ordering some. I left the premises the following morning at approximately 10:00am.

4. The process for ordering new visitor permits (residents are initially limited to only 40) is long winded and also costly and there is no alternative offered during the time of residents running out of permits and ordering new ones.

5. I arrived at the car park in the hours of darkness and the signs were difficult to read as they are not lit. The signs were difficult to read in this situation and it did not help that the print was small.

6. The signs at xxx do not conform to the requirements of schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise, as follows:

a. There are no entrance signs at Liberty Rise as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise (see Exhibit A).
b. The signs are not all illuminated as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise (Exhibit .
c. PCM (UK) Limited have no identified themselves as ‘the creditor’ (Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise (Exhibit .

7. The terms of the sign are also unfair and a disguised penalty. As stated in the Unfair Terms I Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

a. ''5.(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
b. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.''

8. Since receiving the penalty charge notice The Claimant has not supplied further and better particulars, even though I have requested these on multiple occasions.

9. The Gladstone Solicitors Limited’s FAQ’s which was sent to me in my reply for further and better particulars did not fulfil any of my requests and was a shameful attempt to do so. They in no way answered any queries I had and this should have been obvious to The Claimant.

10. The Claimant has not notified me whether I am being pursued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle.

11. I feel that I have not been made fully aware of what I need to defend. I am concerned that the vague automatically generated claims are disproportionate to the time the court needs to spend on such matters and believe the court should use its management powers under CPR 3.3 so as to remove the burden of such template time-consuming claims from the court systems.

12. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action and costs would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent. These letters suggested to me that a County Court Judgement would apply if matters were taken to court and that this could affect my ability to obtain credit, pressuring me into paying something I believe is unjust.

13. The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as is allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.