PCM & Gladstones want a revenge

Hi All

Could someone please review my draft defence for Preliminary section below specially point no.1, 2, 2.1, 2.2 b, c & g as I made them by myself

Statement of Defence

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No: xxxx

BETWEEN:

PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxx (Defendant)

I am xxxx and I am the Defendant in that matter. I am representing myself due to the cost of a solicitor and due to this I request some leeway.

Preliminary

1- The Defendant is a resident, buyer & Transferee and he or who authorised by him have the right for their action along with other granted rights and benefits under Terms & Conditions of Land Registry contract between the Defendant and the Transferor / Landowner of xxxx (the land where the Claimant claims a parking charge (s) for breaching of the terms of parking). The Claimant has no reasonable ground for bringing that claim as there is no any kind of parking restriction or any parking charge(s) mentioned in the Land Registry mentioned above.

2- The Defendant invites the court to strick out or dismiss that claim by exercising its inherent case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 3.4 (2): The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –
(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;
(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or
(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

CPR 3.4 (2)(a),(b) and (c) mentioned above are applied to that claim as explained in first paragraph and will be explained in details below:

2.1 Non compliance with New Protocol for Debt Claims:
a- The Claimant and his Solicitor Gladstones as professional bodies must know there is a new Protocol for debt claims came into force from 01 October 2017 made by the Master of the Rolls as Head of Civil Justice.
b- Since court proceedings started on xxxx , six months after the new protocol came into force, so that protocol clearly applies and must be complied with prior starting that court proceeding.
c- The Defendant in his letter dated xxxx advised and put into attention of Claimant’s solicitor Gladstones that they must comply with the new protocol but they chose to ignore it preventing the Defendant to file proper defence.
d- The Claimant and his solicitor Gladstones ignored and didn’t comply with the new protocol as they didn’t served the Defendant with the documents they are going to rely on, the forms required by that new protocol and the documents or information requested by the Defendant in his letters dated xxxx , xxxx , xxxx and email dated xxxx .

2.2 Inadequate Particulars Of Claim:
a- The brief Particulars of Claim in the claim form breaches and failed to fulfil the pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 as it does not include a statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies and only referring to a Parking Charge(s) with no further description nor details.
b- The Claimant also breaches and failed to fulfil PD 7E Money Claim Online as he chose to insert brief summary of the Particulars of Claim, so he must adhere with Paragraph 5.2 (2) which stated that:
‘’Detailed particulars of claim must:
(2) served and filed by the claimant separately from the claim form in accordance with paragraph 6 but the claimant must –
(a) state that detailed particulars of claim will follow; and
(b) include a brief summary of the claim,’’
c- The Claimant failed to serve detailed Particulars of Claim to the Defendant within the time limit, 14 days after service of the claim form, as stated in PD 7E Paragraph 6 or CPR 7.4(1)(b).
d- That brief Particulars of Claim lacks specificity, incompetent, are embarrassing and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific or proper full defence.
e- There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
f- The Practice Direction also sets out the following example which is analogous to this claim: ‘those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.’
g- Claimant my rely on part of PD 7E paragraph 5.2A for not sending the documents or evidence he is going to rely on it under paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16, but that doesn’t apply in that claim as Claimant must serve and file separate detailed particulars of Claim as explained in above point and there is no contract in force between Claimant and Defendant.
h- The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
i- The Claimant’s solicitor Gladstones 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. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims.

3- The Claimant’s Solicitor Gladstones been shamed in parliament debate on 02 February 2018 for his poor practiced mentioned above hoping to get Regular or Default judgment against Defendant.

4- Court cases Defendant depends on it:
a- The Defendant previous case with the same Claimant and his Solicitor Gladstones case number xxxx at xxxx county court was struck out as the Claimant neither paid the court fees nor served his Witness Statement to the court or the Defendant and the Defendant awarded costs under CPR 27.14(g). Also all Claimant trials to set aside or appeal the struckout order was dismissed / refused.
b- In case number C3GF84Y (Mason, Plymouth County Court), the judge struck out the claim brought by KBT Cornwall Ltd as Gladstones, the same Claimant’s Solicitors, had not submitted proper Particulars of Claim.
c- Similar reasons were cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20 September 2016 where another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones, the same Claimant’s Solicitors, was struck out without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Alternatively if the court doesn’t struck out or dismissed that claim the Defendant asks for:
1- To limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
2- Or to stay that case up to Claimant comply with New Protocol for debt claims, comply with Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), Prectice Direction (PD) mentioned above and serve a detalied Particular of claim and statement of the facts as the Defendant is prejudiced and unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an amended defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings.

Hi All

Court order attached.

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/view.php?id=21646&da=y

3rd legal case with pcm was successful and awarded £1705 for my costs. I used the last minuet technique by sending my WS to pcm 2 days before deadline date to be sure pcm will not have a time to use it in their WS but they did and pcm posted their WS late by 5 days from dead line date then sent supplementary WS 2 days before hearing. of course I complained to court for that and sent strick out request and costs application on the day after deadlines. PCM didn't come to hearing and I proved to the Judge that I have a total right to use the land as per my contract with Landowner then I got Judge attention to the point they sent late WS and they didn't comply with the court order, new protocol for debit claim, CPR, PD and POFA2012. Then I said pcm practice bullying and extortion on residents and myself as they want to cost me 100 times more than the PCN itself and made that proceeding in high environmental costs for myself throughout that proceeding as they didn't reply to any of my letters to them and hiding all the documents to the last minute.

Umkomaas wrote: »

Well done sassii. :T

Do you now have to 'apply' for that payment? (Or maybe it's a bit of legal terminology I don't understand).

pcm missed payment day & 21 days for appeal so I ordered dcbl to get that money from them adding £66 to the costs.