IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
Court Claim - PCM (UK)/Gladstones
Options
glosandy
Posts: 71 Forumite
Hello Everyone,
Appreciate this is my first post, and it's going to be a lengthy one, I hope I am following the correct protocol as a Newbie. I am helping a friend regarding the above. Court papers have been issued via Northampton for the sum of £246 relating to an alleged breach of terms when parking at Whittle Square, Gloucester. Due to out of date advice, all previous correspondence has been ignored.
The intention is to defend the claim. The Acknowledgement of Service has been submitted, and the defence is being drafted. I would like to take any advice available on the main points of how to defend this case.
The specific details listed on the PCM website state the contravention as "Parked Within Restricted Area". The Court Paper Particulars claim "breaching the terms of parking". The signage around the area states "Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay".
The photographic evidence on the PCM website shows the car, of which my friend is the registered keeper, parked in an area of hard landscaping, clear of the road. There is adequate space to park, and there is no defined bay markings (such as painted lines) and no signage that indicates parking is not permitted in that area.
I have visited the site - it is a typical new build area of shops and leisure facilities. All the road, parking and pavement areas are are mixture of block paving, in a variety of finishes and colours. There are no raised kerbs. An area has been "defined" adjacent to where the car was parked, with the bays "marked" out with (hardly) contrasting pavers. In this specific area, there are no painted lines to indicate the parking bays (save for one disabled bay). There are no yellow or double yellow lines. A series of steel bollards are present to "define" pedestrian areas, and the car was not parked beyond this. About 30 metres away is separate parking in front of some shops, that have the bays marked with white paint.
My initial thoughts were that this could be defended on the basis that the bays are not clearly marked, and there is no signage to indicate parking was not permitted where the car was located. There were no other contraventions.
When I visited the site, another car had parked in exactly the same spot. To the other side, a hatched area has been painted onto the pavers to identify emergency access. This I believe is in response to cars using this area for parking - Google maps clearly shows cars parked in this area prior to the lines being painted, with additional signage now present in this area (but still nothing directly where the car was parked). That seems to me to me to indicate that the original use of the hard landscaping to define any parking areas was inadequate.
Adding to this is the fact that the car in question is accessible by any three persons within the household, all with possible reason to be in that area at the time. The incident occurred on 27/06/2017, so knowing who exactly was using the car is difficult to identify. My friend believes she was with her daughter and grandchildren, which would have meant she was using a larger car which she has access to. My friend is somewhat fragile and is on anti-depressants after recovering from breast cancer a few years ago.
So, my task now begins to draft the defence for my friend. I've started researching the board for information, understanding that there seems to be standard approaches to this - but how does the above two points sound as the main part of the defence? Is there a standard way of addressing the no-reply approach to the original letters/notifications?
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Glosandy
Appreciate this is my first post, and it's going to be a lengthy one, I hope I am following the correct protocol as a Newbie. I am helping a friend regarding the above. Court papers have been issued via Northampton for the sum of £246 relating to an alleged breach of terms when parking at Whittle Square, Gloucester. Due to out of date advice, all previous correspondence has been ignored.
The intention is to defend the claim. The Acknowledgement of Service has been submitted, and the defence is being drafted. I would like to take any advice available on the main points of how to defend this case.
The specific details listed on the PCM website state the contravention as "Parked Within Restricted Area". The Court Paper Particulars claim "breaching the terms of parking". The signage around the area states "Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay".
The photographic evidence on the PCM website shows the car, of which my friend is the registered keeper, parked in an area of hard landscaping, clear of the road. There is adequate space to park, and there is no defined bay markings (such as painted lines) and no signage that indicates parking is not permitted in that area.
I have visited the site - it is a typical new build area of shops and leisure facilities. All the road, parking and pavement areas are are mixture of block paving, in a variety of finishes and colours. There are no raised kerbs. An area has been "defined" adjacent to where the car was parked, with the bays "marked" out with (hardly) contrasting pavers. In this specific area, there are no painted lines to indicate the parking bays (save for one disabled bay). There are no yellow or double yellow lines. A series of steel bollards are present to "define" pedestrian areas, and the car was not parked beyond this. About 30 metres away is separate parking in front of some shops, that have the bays marked with white paint.
My initial thoughts were that this could be defended on the basis that the bays are not clearly marked, and there is no signage to indicate parking was not permitted where the car was located. There were no other contraventions.
When I visited the site, another car had parked in exactly the same spot. To the other side, a hatched area has been painted onto the pavers to identify emergency access. This I believe is in response to cars using this area for parking - Google maps clearly shows cars parked in this area prior to the lines being painted, with additional signage now present in this area (but still nothing directly where the car was parked). That seems to me to me to indicate that the original use of the hard landscaping to define any parking areas was inadequate.
Adding to this is the fact that the car in question is accessible by any three persons within the household, all with possible reason to be in that area at the time. The incident occurred on 27/06/2017, so knowing who exactly was using the car is difficult to identify. My friend believes she was with her daughter and grandchildren, which would have meant she was using a larger car which she has access to. My friend is somewhat fragile and is on anti-depressants after recovering from breast cancer a few years ago.
So, my task now begins to draft the defence for my friend. I've started researching the board for information, understanding that there seems to be standard approaches to this - but how does the above two points sound as the main part of the defence? Is there a standard way of addressing the no-reply approach to the original letters/notifications?
Any feedback would be appreciated.
Glosandy
0
Comments
-
There are two other threads late last year concerning Whittle Square, Gloucester.
One was won at court and the other one petered out before court.
It will still be worth reading both:
0 -
You'll likely need this
https://www.each.co.uk/f/14871/p/12/GloucesterWhittleSquareBrochure0812.pdfThe signage around the area states "Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay".
The defence has to relate to the wording on the signsThere are no raised kerbs. An area has been "defined" adjacent to where the car was parked, with the bays "marked" out with (hardly) contrasting pavers. In this specific area, there are no painted lines to indicate the parking bays (save for one disabled bay). There are no yellow or double yellow lines. A series of steel bollards are present to "define" pedestrian areas, and the car was not parked beyond this.
Done, dusted but expect PCM to let this one run until the last moment so have a list of running costs in dealing with it.
You might also want to contact the site management and point out the idiocy of PCM's signs and consequent actions. Ask if they can get the matter sorted as it clearly reflects on them and their retail clients' ability to keep customers. Remind the site management of the number of retail closures this year and whether they are working to add to them.0 -
Thank you for the positive feedback, it's given us the confidence to push ahead with the defence now. A standard Part 18 request has been sent to Gladstones today, I'll post the draft defence below, I would really appreciate any critique.
It starts and ends with some pretty standard points, the meat is in the middle as such! We've decided to concentrate of the definition of the restricted area/marked bay argument, and left the driver identification out of it (assume that would involve declaration of additional drivers, corroborating witness statements etc). Not sure if I'm fooling myself, but it feels like a strong case as it stands...
This needs to be submitted by next Friday.0 -
IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM No. XXXX
Between:
Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE
Preliminary
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £246.06, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.
2. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is 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 their Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the un-evidenced allegations in the Particulars.
2.1 The Claimant!!!8217;s solicitors 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.
2.2 The Defendant believes the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; 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.
3. 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.
3.1 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
4) It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.
5) It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
6) 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.
7) The basis of the claim purports to be related to !!!8220;Parked Within a Restricted Area!!!8221; and it is assumed that this is related to the signage instruction that !!!8220;Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay!!!8221;.
7.1) The vehicle in question was observed to be parked at Whittle Square, Gloucester. It is not challenged that the vehicle in question was parked in the area in front of the David Lloyd Health Club, Whittle Way, Gloucester. The vehicle was parked off the highway in an area commonly used for parking. The vehicle was in no way contravening any Highway Regulations, and was parked safely without obstructing or obscuring any vehicular traffic.
7.2) The Claimant asserts that the vehicle was parked within a restricted area. The Defendant denies this, as there is no indication that the area in question is restricted. There are no signs adjacent to this area prohibiting parking.
7.3) The Claimant asserts via the signage that !!!8220;Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay!!!8221;. The Defendant would argue that the parking area used by the vehicle is within a marked bay, in the context of the markings/definitions of parking bays at the front of the David Lloyd Health Club, Whittle Way, Gloucester.
The area in question does not have any painted bay markings (save for one disabled marking in the end bay) to clearly and unequivocally define the parking bays, which would be the accepted and reasonable way to identify parking bays. The wider area in question is of modern construction using a wide range of hard landscaping materials such as block pavers, stone slabs and setts in a variety of colours and finishes. There are no raised kerbs to define restricted areas or deter parking. There are no road markings (single or double-yellow lines) that might even suggest that the area in question was not fit for parking.
The area the car was parked on is of the same colour and construction as other !!!8220;official!!!8221; parking bays adjacent, therefore it would be reasonable to assume, in the absence of specific signage, that these areas are the same.
8) It is noted by the Defendant that since the date of the alleged offence, subsequent alterations have been carried out to area in front of the David Lloyd Health Club, Whittle Way, Gloucester. This has included the addition of steel bollards to restrict vehicular access, the addition of painted markings to identify emergency access and the erection of signage to notify parking restrictions.
8.1) It is further noted that none of these changes have been applied to the area in question, where the vehicle was parked. It is also noted that the area continues to be used as a parking bay on a regular basis by other patrons.
One that basis, the Defendant argues that either:
!!!8211; the area is considered to be a parking bay
!!!8211; or the Claimant is deliberately obscuring the fact it is not, in order to generate spurious Parking Charge Notices for monetary gain
9) The Defendant avers that, as the vehicle was parked within an area that does not have restricted access, and is not identified as such, the vehicle was parked in compliance with the signage and as such no penalty can be levied by the Claimant.
10) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
11) The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
12) 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).
20) There has been recent discussions at the House of Commons about the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, and the rogue industry, which can be read here:
ttps://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill
21) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. 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.
22) 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.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
Signed
Date0 -
I suggest these two changes:7) The basis of the claim purports to be related to 'Parked Within a Restricted Area' but the facts and images prove that this is not a restricted area at all. [STRIKE]and it is assumed that this is related to the signage instruction that 'Vehicles must park fully within the confines of a marked bay'[/STRIKE]8.2. [STRIKE]One[/STRIKE] On that basis, the Defendant argues that either:
- the area is considered to be, and is in common usage as, a parking bayPRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi, I am in a similiar situation at Whittle Square and am relying on the lack of road markings and confusion on different pavers not making it specific as to which area is restricted. I'm also defending in regard to the signage being confusing and at such a height that it is difficult to read it (bottom of sign is approx 8ft high). Might be worth putting a photo of sign on here and asking for any feed back. Also there is no prominent sign on entering the retail complex to give notice of parking restictions in force.0
-
Hi Marineyes,
I'm making regular trips to the area to build evidence of "common usage" (thanks for that one, Coupon-mad!). I'll take a photo. And thanks for the pointer regarding the sign height - my friend's only 4'10"!!
Whereabouts were you parked?0 -
Just to add that evidence comes later, at WS stage, so don't delay the defence email.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I was parked on the side of the road next to the bollards and horn. There was a couple of cars parked in front of me in a row at the time.0
-
Quick update - Court has acknowledged receipt of defence, now served on Claimant. Looks like we have 28 days for them to proceed...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards