Court papers SIP/ Gladstone “failure to display”

DEFENCE

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing.
not seen these. Check this applies. this was originally drafted in response to 1-sentence claim form only particulars. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence based on the short summary provided by the claimant. 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 and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
1.1. It raises concerns and an element of doubt that there is vacancy in their claim. The structure and depth to these particulars of claim are information limited, therefore the defendant would suggest that this is another issue of a sporadic ‘robo-claim’ whereby no real grounds or reasonable amount of involvement has even taken place to justify the escalated costs associated with these losses / damages. The Claimants are also renown by HM Courts Service for the sporadic issuing of these commonly known ‘robo-claims’ which as such are not in the public interest. This is repetitive and in some places does not make sense. I am not sure it adds anything in any event.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.


Background
3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

4. It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. is this correct? you cannot deny something if, in fact, you were the driver. There is the matter of the statement of truth. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
5.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
Do you need any of this if your case is that you bought a ticket and you intend to serve evidence explaining that you did, attaching it to your statement with contemporaneous photos. You may as well admit driving and not try to be so clever(!)
6. The Defendant is alleged to have breached the terms and conditions by failing to display a valid ticket, this is denied.se allegations are both untrue and unfounded. The Defendant avers that a valid ticket was purchased and that it was displayed in accordance with the directions stated on the ticket as follows:
6.1 The Defendant denies all allegations that no parking ticket was purchased a ticket at XX Hours for a period of YY hours; and
6.2 The purchased ticket was displayed on the dashboard/fascia area of the vehicle directly in front of the instrument binnacle on the driver's side;
6.3 The purchased ticket would have been visible to a responsible body of car park operatives. It is denied that the ticket was not displayed in a manner in which it could both be seen and checked. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the ticket was not displayed.
6.4 Such photographs as are relied upon by the Claimant are inaccurate and misleading being cropped or taken from such an angle so as to display only areas of the vehicle from where the parking ticket purchased was not visible.
6.5 The parking operative is required to provide written and oral testimony before the Court. The Defendant will produce to the Court photographic evidence of the ticket in situ, taken contemporaneously in due course, together with his own witness evidence.


Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his primary defence above, inadequate.
8.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
8.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
8.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
You may wish to check these "boilerplate" allegations re signage do apply here

9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

Conflict of interest
7. The Defendant has not appealed to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) to appeal his ticket prior to the issue of proceedings. The reasons for not doing so are as follows:
7.1. The IAS is an organisation funded by the International Parking Community (the IPC). The IPC is a member funded trade organisation of parking companies.
7.2. Both the IAS and IPC are owned by or are sub-divisions of United Trade and Industry Limited. The directors of that business at the date of the parking ticket being issued were John Llewellyn Gladstone Davies and William Hurley
7.3. It is noted that the solicitors now instructed in this matter on behalf of the Claimant are Gladstones Solicitors Limited. The directors of that company at the date of the parking ticket being issued were John Llewellyn Gladstone Davies and William Hurley

8. In all the circumstances, it is averred that once a ticket had been issued in this matter, there was no course of appeal that was truly independent or impartial. The Defendant has not been offered proper recourse to alternative dispute resolution, notwithstanding the existence of the IAS, which appears to be a veneer. That the law firm instructed to proceed with the claim are directly linked with the body issuing tickets via a trade association was and is a significant concern. The Defendant had no confidence that any appeal, if lodged with the IAS, would have been properly considered.[/B]

9. The Claimant's representative has been provided with a copy of the valid ticket. The Claimant is aware that there has been no financial loss. It is denied that the Claimant has sustained any loss or that there was any breach of terms that may entitle them to damages under contractual provisions or otherwise.

It is commonly known by the amount of spurious claims being handled that parking attendants /representatives go to extreme lengths to generate easy revenue by concealing and manipulate evidence. A situation occurs where a persons good practice and integrity is condemned, Unfortunately the defendant is coerced and challenged under a pseudo parking breach which could be defined as entrapment. adds nothing


LOSS CLAIMED, COSTS AND INTEREST
10. If, which is denied, the Claimant was entitled to issue a parking ticket for which a charge is payable, It is denied that the amounts claimed by the Claimant are permitted by the terms of the contract or in law.
10.1 The signage refers to the amount of the charge being X. If the costs of enforcement are notional or predictable, these should appear on the sign if they are to be capable of agreement.
10.2 Legal costs are not recoverable in the small claims track pursuant to Part 27 CPR other than HMCTS costs
10.3 The correspondence from agents appointed by the Claimant appears to have unilaterally and arbitrarily applied additional charges without explanation or entitlement. These are not actual costs or costs incurred by the Claimant. It is averred that debt recovery agencies work on a no win/no fee basis and that no enhanced costs have been incurred at all. The Claim for such costs is an abuse of process and a breach of the indemnity principle.

11. For the reasons aforesaid, it is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

12. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.