Court Claim Northmapton - Gladstones

pastacolg · 17 July 2018 at 3:19PM

Thanks, Keith! Very useful.

I'll post my defence here around the weekend now that I bought some time.

System · 17 July 2018 at 3:26PM

When putting together your defence, you might want to bare in mind the rules regarding defences (CPR 16.5 (1)) which say:

1) In his defence, the defendant must state -
(a) which of the allegations in the particulars of claim he denies;

(b) which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove; and

(c) which allegations he admits.

If you use on of the templates here which quote other court rules, bare in mind it is a two way street.

pastacolg · 7 August 2018 at 11:50AM

Below is my defence that I'm going to send in a couple of hours to meet the deadline.

As I couldn't really find another thread that suited my case I have manually edited points 4, 5 and 6. Any feedback would be appreciated and welcomed!

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No. DXXXXXXX

Between:
Parking and Property Management Limited (Claimant)
-and-
Mr XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

___________

DEFENCE
__________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £XXX, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.

3. On the material date, the Defendant stopped the vehicle at a place used by traders, on a daytime, close to the entrance of the building, for the purposes of loading and unloading. The Defendant!!!8217;s allocated space at the nearby multi-story residential car park is at the 7th floor which has no lift access. The car park provides merely a stair access for floors 7th and 8th.

4. On any reasonable construction, this action did not constitute 'parking'. In any event, it would be an implied term of the leasehold agreement that leaseholders should be able to park near the entrance temporarily, in order to transfer heavy items from the vehicle to the property and also to safely transfer a toddler in their baby pram.

5. The Leaseholder Agreement is the legal basis upon which the leaseholder occupied the property. On the subject of parking, it states that a leaseholder has a right to load and unload a vehicle given no obstruction is caused for the other parties. The agreement specifies that it!!!8217;s allowed to unload your car under 10 minutes. The Defendant relies upon the Leaseholder's delegated authority under this contract as having primacy of contract over any purported contractual terms asserted by the Claimant's signage.

6. The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant allowed a sufficient amount of time that could be deemed "a reasonable grace period" for loading and unloading a vehicle. The PCN was issued within 13 minutes stating the vehicle was parking outside parking bays which is not true and is allowed for leaseholders of a nearby building. The vehicle on the material date had a permit sticker showing that the vehicle is a resident's one. The Defendant believes that the grace period should apply especially in this case where a building itself is a high-rise one and it is often not possible to make a load and unload given one has to take into consideration waiting time for a lift to a higher floor on their in and out.

7. The Defendant has no knowledge of whether there is any contractual arrangement between the Claimant and the owner or occupier of the land in question, or, if such a contractual arrangement exists, what the terms of that arrangement are. The Claimant is therefore required to prove that it has the necessary standing to bring this claim.

8. It is denied that a contract was formed between the Claimant and the Defendant. This is because no offer was communicated by the Claimant, effectively or at all, that was capable of acceptance by the Defendant, expressly, by conduct, or at all.

9. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed. If, which is denied, a contract was in place between the Claimant and the Defendant and the Defendant breached a term of that contract it is denied that the Claimant's losses amount to the sum claimed. Alternatively, if, which is denied, a contract was in place between the Claimant and the Defendant under which the Defendant is liable to pay the sum claimed to the Claimant it is denied that the sum due under the contract is the sum claimed.

10. 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 believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

....................................... ......................
(Defendant) (Date)

pastacolg · 22 September 2018 at 3:53PM

I had hoped that Gladstones would not reply to my defence. But they have just send Directions Questionnaire and below letter on the last day they could reply to my defence.

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client's intention to proceed with the claim.

Please find enclosed a copy of our Client's completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client's opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate. We trust you agree. (pastacolg: my emphasis)

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.

Yours sincerely

I read in the Newbie FAQ that they would offer a mediation but they stated above that the case is relatively straightforward and they want a hearing on the papers alone.

Should I be worried about the defence I'd put forward? Have Gladstones got a copy of it and decided it's a weak one? Or is all of it just their standard template letter to scare me off and persuade to rather pay them off?

DQ has been sent to me on 13th September. How much time do I have left to send the form back?

Quentin · 22 September 2018 at 4:01PM

They may want a hearing on papers.

But you don't!!

KeithP · 22 September 2018 at 4:02PM

Have you received a DQ from the County Court Business Centre?
If so, surely it tells you when you have to return it?

Did you see this linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES:

Note: Gladstones are currently including a 'request for special directions' asking the Court to hear the case on the papers only, without an oral hearing. You should oppose this, and include the following text in D1: “The Defendant opposes the Claimant’s request for special directions, and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the defendant’s home court, pursuant to CPR 26.2A(3)”.

When you have completed the DQ, following the guidance offered in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread of course, return it to the CCBC using the same email address that you used for your Defence.

Don't forget to send a copy to the Claimant - address is on your Claim Form.

beamerguy · 22 September 2018 at 8:55PM

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client's opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate. We trust you agree.

Normal Gladstones rubbish, trying to make out you will lose

Yes it is relatively straightforward

You give a good defence, get yet another whooping for
Gladstones in court and then claim your costs

NO TO PAPERS, you need a judge to whoop them. they
are highly incompetent legals at the best of times

The courts already know of their incompetence

NO TO PAPERS

Get it right and whoop them, they are used to it with
their dodgy claims

PS: You are aware that Gladstones set up the IPC/IAS
scam ?????

pastacolg · 23 September 2018 at 10:25PM

Quentin, KeithP and beamerguy, thank you very much for your help!

I have sent my DQ back to CCBC and Gladstones. It's so simple to fill with the guide provided here that I should have done it days ago.

Thanks again!

P.S. Beamerguy, no but it doesn't surprise me at all.

pastacolg · 23 September 2018 at 10:30PM

KeithP, I actually haven't received the DQ from CCBC yet. I've just got a copy of Gladstones' N180 and thought this would constitute a 1-2 week response deadline for me. Silly me.

I downloaded the N180 from the goverment website and filled it in so I might have jumped the gun a bit here

I hope the CCBC wouldn't mind too much.

pastacolg · 16 January 2019 at 6:46PM

I lost this case today at the court.

Although I was expected to lose it due to my non-standard defence I put forward but I feel a bit gutted because the judge was super helpful and it was a close call at the end.

My whole defence lied on the fact that I insisted that my car was not parked at the out-of-parking area but it was in the process of loading/unloading heavy items to the nearby building. In my defence I stated that my leaseholder agreement stated that I could do loading/unloading under 10 minutes. In fact I admitted I was off the vehicle for a couple minutes more as a photo evidence has shown.

But when the judge asked for the leaseholder agreement I failed to present it to him. I, and also the parking company's legal representative who told me that later, believe that was what eventually cost me the case.

On the good side I am still going to pay LESS what I was asked before the case (around £50 less) as the judge didn't award the £60 additional costs on top of the £100 parking fee. Total cost for me is £200. Best of all I didn't even have to take a day off or lose my contract day rate as I will just make it up for the hours spent in the court this evening.

Thank you everyone for your help. All in all it was a great experience and a good lesson that one has to prepare better for the hearing.

Court Claim Northmapton - Gladstones

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free