County court response date has passed.

Thank you so much, I will continue later and post another draft.
Thanks again

Sorry to re post..
Please take a look and advise if this is satisfactory to send.....I've read and typed so much i'm struggling to see if I am repeating certain points.
I'm greatful for any advice





I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:



1. 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.
It is denied that any "parking charges" as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

2. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided:
(a) the Claim discloses no cause of action to give rise to any debt
(b) the Claimant has simply stated that a parking charge was incurred.
(c) the Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
(d) the Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states parking charges, which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. 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. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
(e) 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.
(f) on the 19th August 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

3. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.
a) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.
b) The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.
c) The claimant failed to send an initial NTK, first ever correspondence received was a letter before claim with charges of 320.00 pound between two tickets on consecutive days.
d) The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in meaningful pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.
e)The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the final sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed to £360.00 (excluding court fees and alleged legal costs). This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (which was not received).
f

4. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 57 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict keeper liability provisions.
Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.

5. 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")
a) Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
a) i) there was a 'relevant obligation'; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
a) ii) 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.
b) To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, 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.



6. PoFA 2012 only allows the recovery of the parking charge stated on the Notice to Keeper and not court fees, damages, indemnity costs or legal representative’s costs.
The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.
It is denied that the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.


7. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected.

8. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case also BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case
a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the lighting.
b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
c) It is believed the signage and 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 by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
d) 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.
e) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
f) It is denied that the Claimant’s signs constitute a fair or relevant contract. The terms and conditions of the sign, or the acceptance of a liability, are not synonymous with a contract. In the alternative, any contract that was established was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance as the Defendant had no means of securing a valid parking permit. The terms and conditions of parking detailed on the Claimant's signs can only apply to those with the authority to park.

9. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that a 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. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.

10. The defendant was completely unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficiently lit signage. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.
The Defendant parked legitimately in a visitor bay, used without penalty or charge for many years, by various residents/visitors at the site. After all these years, the residents and the Defendant shared the legitimate expectation of a continuing right of way and unfettered right to use the demised parking bays.


11. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot
a) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and
b) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.

12. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

13. The claimant 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 states:
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.


14. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with members at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

15. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

16. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

17. In the alternative, any agreement signed between the Claimant and the landowner must grant the Claimant the right to enter into a contract with the driver, not merely to issue charge notices. In accordance with the contra proferentem rule, any ambiguity must be interpreted against the Claimant.


18. The Defendant researched the matter online and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organization operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies and William Hurley, such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.


19. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

20. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

The defendant respectfully requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
Furthermore 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.

The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.


Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

HI, I've had the signed copy back off my mum so am trying to fill in the defence online....it's not letting me leave the box blank....I know it recommends not to even put a full stop but it's not letting me go the next step...?