Gladstones - Court Claim Form & defence

Sorry - too quick on the button - Yes, I have acknowledged the Claim with the Court but not posted a defence as yet.

I have had a Claim Form issued from County Court Business Centre in Northampton (I understand this is the default for online submissions) which I've responded to on moneyclaim.gov.uk

I have spent a while reading Bargepole's replies to similar cases (much of which formed the basis of my proposed response - it's hugely helpful). I was hoping/thinking that what I've got/done so far is in line with Bargepole's advice, but I'm going to go back again and check! This is all extremely helpful for somebody who doesn't do this sort of thing often - so thanks again.

Blimey - thank you so much! I'm about leave for work so I'll get back onto this later (likely tomorrow morning by the time I've amended as per comments and Bargepole/Newbie sticky 2) but this is tremendous, thank you (I'm saying this too much, aren't I........)

Hello again.

So, I've taken onboard all the comments and advice, and edited the letter accordingly. Having looked at Bargepole's advice and also at Parking Prankster and others, I'm anxious but determined to see this through. I've searched quite a lot for a clear definition of 'parking' as per Loadsofchildren123's advice but in the absence of anything concrete, I've written whet I hope seems sensible and reasonable about what actually constitutes 'parking' per se. Anyhow, the following is where I'm at and, as ever, any comments or advice will be gratefully received (its actually better laid out than it appears as formatting seems to disappear when copying to the board):

(BEGINS)

The Defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle XXXXX is XXXXX and he currently resides at XXXXXXXXXXXXX.

Whilst the Defendant admits that he was the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXX at the time off the particular incident, he denies that he is liable for the entirety of the claim for each and every one of the following reasons:

1/ This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol

(a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction, despite the Defendant's requests for this and further information.

(b) The Defendant did not receive any letter requesting payment from the Claimant. No copy letter was received, either, from the Claimant’s legal representative, despite informing them (Claimant’s legal representative) that no original letter had been received.

(c) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information. The first-received covering letter merely contains a supposed PCN number with insufficient contravention details, nor any photographs.

(d) The Claimant’s legal representative sent an erroneous Letter Before Claim, demanding payment relating to another vehicle, not known to the defendant, prior to the defendant subsequently receiving a Letter Before Claim regarding their vehicle. This was not acknowledged despite the defendant seeking further information in writing.

2/ The Claim form particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail.
The Defendant had little idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. This is in direct breach of CPR Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 7E paragraph 5.2 and, if a contract is relied upon, the absence of the contractual terms is a breach of Practice Direction 16 para 7.3.
The Defendant wrote to the Claimant on xxxx prior to proceedings being issued, asking them to provide further and appropriate details of the Claim, in compliance with these Rules, and the Claimant ignored that letter in complete defiance of its obligations pursuant to paragraphs 6(a), 6(c) and 12 of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.

3/ The Defendant never received any Notice to Keeper from the Claimant.
The first communication the Defendant received was a letter dated XXXX from the Claimant’s solicitor. He immediately wrote to the Claimant’s legal representative explaining that no letter had been received but received no copy communication. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice to keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA.

4/ The Defendant further denies that any contract was formed because the driver did not "park”.
The Defendant denies that he parked according to the commonly understood meaning of that word and according to common understanding within POFA; the driver merely drove into of the site when he had lost his way, checked written directions for a short period (only 3 minutes according to the time of alleged parking recorded by the Claimant) then left. The driver cannot therefore have accepted any contractual terms (if any, which is denied) that were offered by the Claimant.

5/ The Defendant denies that any contract was formed between the driver and the Claimant.
The existence of a contract is denied because of inadequate signage; the existing signage was incapable of forming any contract which would have bound the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
(a) Inadequate of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, and no contract was formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(b) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or clearly legible;
(c) Any contract which may have been formed is void because its terms are unfair as they were contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time),
(d) No terms were agreed by the driver
(e) 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.
(f) The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
(g) Sum pursued exceeds £100.

Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.

6/ No standing (this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case)
It is unclear whether UK Parking Management & Enforcement hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if the case concerned is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

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.

7/ The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge.
If Mr XXXXXXX (Claimant’s legal representative, who signed the form) is an employee then the Defendant suggests he is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £50 legal costs were incurred. The defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any further payment.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a)Issued an erroneous claim to the defendant regarding an unknown vehicle, rendering their administration questionable

(b) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(c) failed to respond to a letter from the Defendant dated xxxxxxx requesting further information and details of the claim and subsequently a second letter dated xxxxxxxxxxxx

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 and no reasonable prospects of success.

It is believed the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.
In support of these arguments, the defendant has provided the specific correspondence between him and Gladstones Solicitors in chronological order (five items of correspondence). Also supplied is a sample photograph of the signs which are placed occasionally around the site.

(ENDS)