Fine after 30seconds

Sorry wasnt by my computer the last 24 hours or so.
LOL - that was a typo on my behalf should of been defence. I'm a brit.

Few questions:
1 -how can i make a counterclaim?
2 - In reference to the byelaws it says that a company like PCM can beused on behalf of transport company who own the land . how do i get out of that byelaw?

today i will send off my response to Gladstone as per Gans examples. anything else i should do?

thanks

Afternoon all.

This is my first draft and I hope to improve it a lot – pls let me know if i have missed anything valuable or if its very bad? I take criticism very well.
I have also based it on not getting a response from GS from my replies to their LBC, wanted to get a head start on my defence.

I have appealed as driver stupidly in the beginning should i change anything or put anything else in?

My main points I need to put across in my defense is:

1) Not accepting the contract by driving off – Their own images prove this, as evidence should I include these as reference in any points? Reference point 3
2) Poor signage as I had to pull over to read the sign and get out of my car – their images show this evidence. Reference point 4 and 5.
3). Byelaws is referred to in point 9
4). Point 3 – is there a POFA definition of parking? Is there a better way to put this?

---

Claim Number XXX
Between:
XXX Limited v XXX
I am XXXXXXXXXXX, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX. I currently reside at XXXXXXXXXXXXX.
I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:
1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol:
(a) The Claimant has not complied with pre-action protocol, under the Practice Direction as a compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’ was not issued despite the Defendant's requests for further information.
(b) It contained very little information and merely referred to the "PCN Number", Date of charge, Location and Charge Amount of £160; and requesting payment before 14 days. No further information was provided about the claim, with no contravention or photographs.
(c) The letter was dated 25 July 2017. The letter was delivered by the Post Office on 28 July 2017 before the weekend, which left us with only 5 working days to consult on the matter with the relevant authorities or seek legal counsel.
(d) I responded on 31 July 2017 requesting further information and a breakdown of the costs by email and 1st class post but no acknowledgement or response received from Gladstones Solicitors Limited. Instead, on XX Gladstones Solicitors Limited issued a Claim Form in the County Court Business Centre.
(e) This is a known speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
2. The Claim Form issued on the XX by Gladstones Solicitors Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction.

a. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. It only contained the following information:

(a) The defendant's name and address
(b) The Vehicle Registration Number.
(c) The date of the alleged parking incident (time not provided)
(d) The location of where the alleged parking incident occurred
(e) High level outstanding amount and break down of costs.

It does not detail or provide the following:

(a) Proof or confirmation of the driver at the time of the alleged incident. In fact the Particulars of Claim state that "The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/ or is the keeper of the Vehicle". It is not clear under what basis the Claim is being made against me here.
(b) Proof of the vehicle being there at the alleged time.
(c) How long or proof that the car was actually parked at the said location by the Defendant
(d) Proof that any signs detailing parking restrictions were clearly visible at the time that the car was parked at the stated location (i.e. they were not covered or out of view)
(e) The vehicle type and colour.
(f) Detailed information on why the charge arose – i.e. basis for the claim.
(g) Explanation of the charges and what exactly it relates to. This claim merely states: “parking charges/ damages and indemnity costs if applicable” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.
(h) They have stated they are seeking interest but provide no details on the period this relates to (the defendant clearly told the Claimant that the debt was denied. The Defendant is not therefore liable for the Claimant’s delay in bringing a claim).


3. The Defendant further denies that any contract was formed because the driver did not "park" according to the ordinary meaning of that word or according to the definition in POFA; the driver merely drove into the site, read the sign which wasn’t accepted and exited the site. A period of only 2 minutes passing between the time of entry and the time of exit recorded by the Claimant. The driver cannot therefore have accepted any contractual terms (if any, which is denied) that were offered by the Claimant. Of which there is evidence shown in photos of the driver reading the sign, not accepting the contract by driving off.

THE IPC also stats about ‘Grace Periods’, points 13.1-13.4. The Defendant read the sign did not accept the contract and then drove off to exit the site.

13 Grace periods
13.1 Your approach to parking management must allow a driver who enters your car park but decides not to park, to leave the car park within a reasonable period without having their vehicle issued with a parking charge notice.
13.2 You should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action.
13.3 You should be prepared to tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.
13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action


4. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) It is believed the signage was not lit or visible, any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(c) 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.
(d) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.


5. BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(b) sum pursued exceeds £100.

6. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is unclear whether Parking Control Management (PCM) Limited hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

7. 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.

8. The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. If Mr XXXXXXX (claimants legal representative who signed the form) is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £60 legal costs were incurred. The defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

9. Railway Byelaws –

(a) As this land comes under railway byelaws this is not a claim to be brought by the Parking Control Management (PCM) Ltd but by the Train Operating Company which owns the land and the correct procedure is for such proceedings to be pursued in the magistrate’s court, not the county court.
(b) The claimant's claim should be struck out because any claim of breach of byelaws is a matter for Magistrates' court, and if the claimant is suggesting that they can run contract law alongside byelaws on 'non-relevant land' (as defined in the POFA) then it is a fact that a registered keeper/driver cannot be held liable in law, in any case.

10. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a)Issued an erroneous claim to the defendant regarding an unknown vehicle, rendering their administration questionable.
(b) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
(c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated xxxxxxx requesting further information and details of the claim and subsequently a second letter dated xxxxxxxxxxxx.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

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

Can anyone help on my defense? :-(

any feedback at all from anyone? :-(