County court response date has passed.

Sorry just to clarify why the tickets were for 2 consecutive days, my mum had just had a hip replacement so wasn't walking much or driving at all so couldn't move the car. My sister came on the second day to move the car for her.

Thank you, I'm on it..just didn't want to put in incorrect information to the court.

Am I on the right lines with this....?
I will add the claim details .......vs........etc
Anything I should remove or add?

Thanks in advance

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

1. The Letter before Claim issued on 05/01/2018 by Gladstones was not
correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by Gladstones (Claimant’s Legal Representative).

2. 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.

3. 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. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the lighting.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
I 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.


7. 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.

8. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states parking charges, which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.

9. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is roboclaims which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.


10. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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).

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.

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.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.