Gladstone County Court Claim

KeithP wrote: »

In post #59 you told us the Order said:

Can you tell us exactly what that point said?

Did it really use the word 'submit'?

I think the answer you are looking for is in there.

...........if the claimant complies with this order the Defendant may send to the court and the claimants solicitors a Defence in substitution for the Defence dated XX on Dec 2018 by 4PM on XX May 2019

got the new PoC,
Their claims are registered keeper liabilty, relying on POFA.
And contract was formed to to park on the land,
cliams for interest
claims for costs

They also state , 'Notwithstanding, the defendant was driving the vehicle'

how can they say this, i have never mentioned who the driver was, in any case. the burden of proof is on them.

Umkomaas wrote: »

I haven't ploughed back over the entire thread, but the important starting point for you on this is - are all their NtKs fully compliant with PoFA?

NTK have some grey areas, as keeper i feel its not relevant land, no period of parking specified. thats about it, and also keeper liabitly.

the two main points they are lookin at according to the new PoC are;

POFA, keeper liabitly
and contract to park

so do i based the new defence on those 2 points only now? or keep other points which i still feel relevant

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Show us your new replacement defence draft now.

points 1-4 are the main arguments, point 6, is this too long? there are too many variation of the site for parking on further investigations

---

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

2. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that whilst operating as a contractor on an agency basis, it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment from the defendant by means of litigation. The defendant believes the vehicle was not parked on any relevant land under their control and has acquired Land Registry documents. Therefore no ‘relevant contract’ was formed and under POFA 2012, the registered keeper is not liable.

3. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant have claimed in the amended PoC, ‘Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant was driving the vehicle’. There is no way to know which insured driver parked as this was too long ago. Thus, it is untrue for the Claimant to assert that the Defendant was driving, as even the Defendant has no idea and there is no evidence.
3a. The Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 PARA 9, states; 2 - The notice to keeper must— (a) Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates. The defendant believes the vehicle was not on “relevant land” and is classed as a public highway area as part of an access road, and no ‘specified period of parking. Therefore, no keeper liability.

4. 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.

5. The Defendant has already successfully won an appeal against the Claimant on a previous occasion for parking charge XXXX issued on XX/XX/2017, which is based on similar grounds. There is no consistency in their appeal process and are acting in an unprofessional and unreasonable manner by pursuing this claim.

6. The defendant has visited the said car park as a result of this claim. It was noticed that there is no signage at the entrances to the site from the main road and within entering and exiting the car park itself. This is a failure of the BPA code of practice 18.2 and 18.4 not adhering to Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. It is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. 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. There was no acceptance of any signs upon entering the car park via the access road as there is none, and mentioned above, therefore, no terms were accepted of contract.
6a. Furthermore, there are conflicting signs around the site; signs state it is for the use of ‘Banktop Tavern’ and ‘Mecca Bingo’ patrons only, and that such patrons be on the authorised user list.
6b. The signs does not state how to be on the authorised user list, but does state that customers can use the parking site, so it is a frustration of contract.
6c. there are signs ‘NO Parking’ that say a maximum of 30 minutes stay, so there is conflict.
6d. There is also a pay and display unit - £2 for 1 hr parking, £5 for 24hrs respectively.

6.1. The signs also fail because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and contrary to the BPA Code of Practice 21.1. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge, (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case), this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

7. 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 ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 And ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in-law.’

8. The Defendant had made attempts to settle the matter as the registered keeper before court proceedings were commenced by the claimant, and considered alternative dispute resolution as specified under the Pre-Action Protocols 6.1 where it states - If the parties still cannot agree about the existence, enforceability, amount or any other aspect of the debt, they should both take appropriate steps to resolve the dispute without starting court proceedings and, in particular, should consider the use of an appropriate form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

9. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to a total of £480. The defendant submits that the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures 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, Gladstone’s Solicitors Limited appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

10. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. Mr Beavis admitted being the driver and that he overstayed, having seen the prominent signs offering a parking licence set out in clear wording, and thus he had entered into a contract with ParkingEye.

10.1. Taking the comments of the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal in the earlier hearing in Beavis) into account, the 'parking charge' sum owed in this case can, at most, only be £2(1-hour parking according to the P&D machine) and there was ample opportunity to fairly collect and transparently advertise that sum on site, on the material day.

11. In view of all the foregoing, the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

By this, do you mean you won at POPLA, or won against a court claim?

first stage of appeal to the PPC. they cancelled the charge, which as keeper i apeealed on the #6C, this so called loading bay, maximium 30 mintues stay.

the other tickets looks to be under the same circumstances