Claim Form for UK Car Park Management / Gladstones

Superb! Thank you! Final defence ready for printing, signing, scanning, emailing:



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:!

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)” These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.!

3. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

4. Further and in the alternative, the terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.!

5. In preparing this defence and examining the entrance signage it appears the driver would have to rely upon a sign facing incoming cars, which stated “Parking Conditions” clearly offering no contract and no chargeable terms. As well as all the above, the signage at the entrance of the site is unlit and this makes it impossible to read at night to someone in a moving vehicle as per this case. If there was another sign with other terms, it was not prominent (not seen at all) and there was no reason to expect a circumspect driver to seek out more signs. And no lawful reason to conclude that the parking decision and conduct of the driver meant that a charge had been accepted or agreed.

6. The Claimant’s entrance signage is not at driver eye level, points towards cars entering the estate from the right and not the left, with details and terms in exceptionally small print. The positioning, font size and height mean that the sign is hard to read even if a visitor knows where to find it.

7. The sign does not conform to the IPC's Code of Practice:
a. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 4), which states the signs should be “clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site”; The sign located near the site entrance is unlit and therefore impossible to see at night by a driver in a passing vehicle.
b. (Schedule 1 – Signage, 5), which states the signage ought to “have clear and intelligible wording and be designed such that it is clear to the reasonable driver that he is entering into a contract with the creditor or committing a trespass as the case may be”; Nowhere on the sign does it inform the reader that by parking in Mary Munnion, he/she is entering into a contract with the Claimant. The words “contract’ or “agreement’ do not appear at all within the sign. The phrase “Terms and Conditions” are not synonymous with a contract. 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

8. The entire estate has the appearance of public highway, not a car park, and thus, an average circumspect driver would only expect to seek out parking terms & regulations if there were yellow lines, or bays, marked at the kerb. There are no such markings at this location, and nothing to suggest that one road is 'private land' as opposed to Wood Street, as a car turns the corner. The signage fails to meet Lord Denning's well known ‘Red Hand Rule’, with no appropriate prominence given to the onerous risk of being bound by terms that introduce a 'concealed pitfall or trap', as was defined in ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In the instant case, the penalty sum is not prominent, and represents neither a necessary deterrent nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.

9. It should be obvious from the above that signage at this location is entirely inadequate, misleading and incapable of creating a contract with the Defendant. The Claimant cannot place a sign out of sight and expect the driver to see a sign which has been placed there unlit or to spot further signs, which have been placed at an inadequate height and in an inadequate lighting.

10. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

12. I can provide numerous witness statements from residents of the estate that the parking rules were scrapped with no fixed end date around the date/time of the PCN. I have contacted the property management company in charge ‘Firstport Property Services Limited’ who have also confirmed the rules were scrapped for a period of time but they have been unable to give me an exact start and end date despite numerous attempts for the information. The residents of Mary Munnion have repeatedly been confused by the changing nature of the rules and implementation of these ‘Parking Conditions’ on the estate.

13. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.!

Name!
Signature
Date

Hi guys.

My DQ turned up in the post. Before I write all over it, is this the correct post the follow on how to fill it out?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71763411&postcount=68

Do I send that back and then wait for my court date - then I start the Witness Statement and evidence process? So just the DQ paperwork to do today?

*** EDIT ***

Just realised it's Gladstones copy in the post. I have found the link to print my own one off and fill out. Do I post back to the address in the top right of my original Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre?

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Yes, that it the correct post to follow. Send it back to the same e-mail address that you sent your defence. When you have been allocated a court (local to you) you will receive further instructions as to when you must submit your WS. Send a copy by e-mail of the DQ to Gladstones. KEEP a copy for yourself!

Also reread post # 4 in this thread for more info about DQs etc.

Thank you. Do you know how long I have to file a DQ? My printer isn't working and I'm not back in the office until next Thursday. Unless one of those PDF editors would suffice and I can just typed into the DQ PDF and attach it?

Le_Kirk wrote: »

I asked Auntie Google and she said "within 14 days of receiving it"

I have read the same thing, but when I login into Money Claim Online, the last entry is:

Your defence was received on 01/04/2019

Should they have posted something to me yet? In bold:

If the claim is defended a court officer will provisionally decide the track which appears most suitable and serve on each party, a Notice of Proposed Allocation.

I've only received Gladstones letter and DQ in the post yesterday, nothing from the court.

Just want to be clear what 14 day window I'm adhering to!

Thank you.