Letter Before Claim - Gladstones

Post number 2 gave me the template for my response to Gladstones ‘Letter before claim’.

That was done and sent, then I’ve got a standard response back with a further 30 days to respond.

Am I missing something from the 2nd post by Coupon-mad?

Have today recieved county court claim form.

Can i copy a response from someone else on here or do i need to tailor it to the specifics of my case?

First things first, I have acknowledged service of the court papers.

To save re-reading the thread, the case in summary is my vehicle was parked in a loading bay outside of a housing estate. Ticket recieved from PCM for "parking without clearly displaying a permit to park". They have photographic evidence of the car, and it is stopped adjacent to a sign.

I have gone through the sticky post 2, and read lots of draft arguments. Below is my draft defence:


___________________________

1.2. This claim refers to a parking incident in an unmarked lay-by outside the Barham Park housing Estate, in Wembley. For all intents and purposes this bay appears to be part of the public highway.

1.3. On the 29th October 2016 the vehicle was in said unmarked lay-by.

1.4. After a period of 1 minute and 8 seconds, going by the evidence provided, a parking charge notice was applied to the vehicle.

1.5. The Particulars of Claim states that the charge is for breaching the terms of parking on the land.

1.6. The claimant refused to provide any evidence of landowner authority for issuing parking charges, citing client confidentiality.

2. No Contract Exists

2.1 I understand from correspondence with the Claimant that the Claimants case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a contract between myself and the Claimant. The breach of terms on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by this signage.

2.2 There is no offer made by the signage in this case, and no conceivable way I could have benefitted from this alleged contract, without breaching its terms.

2.3 The very act of entering into this alleged contract (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. How was the sum of £100 'agreed', given that PCM's sign is prohibitive - unable in this case to be deemed to be offering a contract?

2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester; in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. I cannot have entered into a contract for something I was not authorised to do.

3. Inadequate Signage

3.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that I would not have passed any signage indicating I was entering private land.

3.2 The IPC guidelines state that signage that is intended to form a contract should be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site. The signs are visible, however they are impossible to read clearly from the vehicle.

3.3 The IPC guidelines (1.15) state Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. No specific time is given, although (15.2) specifies a minimum period of ten minutes for leaving the site. I do not consider the time given (1 minutes 8 seconds based on the evidence provided) was adequate time for the driver to read and assess the signage on site. It is certainly not enough time to ask for clarification on the parking restrictions.

4. Consumer Rights

4.1 The signage at the site does not carry the information required by the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13), specifically on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2.

5. Landowner Authority

5.1 Despite being asked, the Claimant has not provided any indication that they are authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have the authority to do this.

6. Additional Costs

6.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original parking charge. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

6.2 The Particulars of Claim include £50 for solicitor's costs, yet all I have received from the Claimants solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these costs are justified. Proof that the sum of £50 was paid by their client, to whom, and for what service.

END
_____________________

The points included above are the ones I feel comfortable with, I feel my strongest argument is possibly the 'no contract exists' one? The sign states authorised vehicles only.

Can I post images of the signs/location etc to help?

Hi thanks for your comments nosferatu. I have amended the above to reflect your comments.

- Deleted 1.1

- Amended the wording as per your comments " For all intents and purposes this bay appears either to be part of the public highway." - where is the other part to the "either"? (I didn't mean to write 'either')

- Do I have to specify if the vehicle was parked or stopped? I thought I may possibly prejudice the 'prohibitive sign' argument if I confirmed the car was in fact actually 'stopped/loading', rather than parked?