UKCPM Gladstones Hospital PCN Court Claim

Hi again. Could someone please advise me if this is ok before I send it off? Should/Could I add anything else in our defence?
Thank you so much for your time and help.


1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and when the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

2. It is not admitted that the Defendant was the driver when the alleged incident took place.

Background

3. The Defendant received a xxxxxxx transplant on xxxxxxxx and was attending a subsequent appointment at xxxxx Hospital on the day of the alleged incident. He was a passenger in the vehicle in question and was a holder of a valid Disabled Badge.

4. Being late for the appointment (due to heavy traffic on xxxxxxx), the driver of the vehicle hastily parked the vehicle on the double yellow lines and displayed the Defendant’s Blue Badge, as they had done many times during the course of the previous two years when the Defendant was a patient at the hospital, and proceeded to escort the Defendant to his appointment.

5. A few days later the Defendant received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) at their address.

Preliminary Matters

6. The Claimant has failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

7. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

8. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):

(1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
(2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
(3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

9. On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action or to alternatively order the Claimant to provide further and better particulars, and leave for the Defendant to amend their defence once a fuller disclosure is made.

No Contract Offered

10. It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage. The signage on site states a prohibitive instruction, not a contractual offer of any parking licence. Hence, there was no breach of terms as there was no offer of parking and therefore there was no contract - it was at most a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied).

11. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that under the circumstances explained in Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 above, the charge is unconscionable, as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.


No Obstruction Caused by the vehicle

12. The Defendant also states that the vehicle in question was not impeding other motorists or restricting traffic flow in any way on the day of the incident.

Proof of Contract not supplied by Claimant

13. 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, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same, in the form of an unreacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

14. The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with details of the landowner even upon the Defendant’s written request. Hence, the Defendant has been unable to contact the landowners to explain the circumstances to them and to request a cancellation of the PCN.

Double Recovery

15. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £252.87. I submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. Any additional charges were not stated on the parking signs and these figures have been plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further, Gladstones Solicitor appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

16. The Defendant requires the Claimant to provide strict proof that these charges were:
a) detailed in the purported contract
b) invoiced, and
c) actually paid

17. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

Thank you The Deep and Coupon-mad.

I've made the recommended amendments and here's how the Defence looks now

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident and when the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued.

2. It is not admitted that the Defendant was the driver when the alleged incident took place.

Background

3. The Defendant received a transplant on xxxxxxxx and was attending a subsequent appointment at xxxxx Hospital on the day of the alleged incident. He was a passenger in the vehicle in question and was a holder of a valid Disabled Badge.

4. Being late for the appointment (due to traffic on xxxxxxxx), the driver of the vehicle parked the vehicle on the double yellow lines and displayed the Defendant’s Blue Badge, as they had done many times during the course of the previous two years when the Defendant was a patient at the hospital, and proceeded to escort the Defendant to his appointment.

5. Blue Badge holders are allowed to park on single or double yellow lines for up to 3 hours. On the roadway in question on the day of the PCN, there was no reason to indicate that the double yellow lines where the driver had parked meant anything else, let alone the opposite of the expected meaning, as prohibiting disabled blue badge holders from parking would be completely unexpected on the double yellow lines. To indicate the restrictions or prohibitions the lines should have had kerb markings/double reds/hatches/zig-zags with clear signs.

6. A few days later the Defendant received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) at their address.

No Contract Offered

7. It is denied that there was a contract made between the Claimant and the driver through signage. The signage on site states a prohibitive instruction, not a contractual offer of any parking licence. Hence, there was no breach of terms as there was no offer of parking and therefore there was no contract - it was at most a civil trespass (though this is neither admitted nor denied).

8. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that under the circumstances explained in Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 above, the charge is unconscionable, as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.


No Obstruction Caused by the vehicle

9. The Defendant also states that the vehicle in question was not impeding other motorists or restricting traffic flow in any way on the day of the incident.

Proof of Contract not supplied by Claimant

10. 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, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same, in the form of an unreacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

11. The Claimant has failed to supply the Defendant with details of the landowner even upon the Defendant’s written request. Hence, the Defendant has been unable to contact the landowners to explain the circumstances to them and to request a cancellation of the PCN.

Costs on the Claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

12. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £252.87. I submit the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant. Any additional charges were not stated on the parking signs and these figures have been plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further, Gladstones Solicitor appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

13. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

14. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

15. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

16. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

17. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

18. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

19. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…''

20. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

21. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

22. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.