Gladstones / Millennium claim form

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Where is Metropole Chambers? Is that where their offices are? The same guy who owns Millennium owns Fancy a Rum? and I think this might be the same area, and so you may find they ARE the landowner. It may be worth doing a Land Registry search, it only costs £3 for the title information (and another £3 if you want a plan). Phone Land Reg, they are very helpful and will talk you through how to apply.

Its a little side street next to the vue cinema in Swansea. Yes, It is where they have their offices! Im not sure if its the same guy that owns it. Fancy a rum is just around the corner from metropole Chambers. There are some other business listed on the sign next to the door so im not sure if millennium are the land owners. If they were the only business there maybe, but there is some kind of beauty salon type deal and something else as well in the same building as them.

im trying to post a first attempt of my defence but it keeps saying "you must wait 30 seconds between posts" any advice?

Ok, lets give this a go posting this today, im going to have to post it in 2 posts it seems because i cant do it in one. first attempt so anything that is wrong and needs changing, any suggestions of things to add / take away are all most welcome! I have researched it and looked at other treads on this forum plus advice from this thread so hopefully it should be in the ball park.

1. It is acknowledged that the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The defendant was not, however, the driver of the vehicle on the alleged contravention date.


2. 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.

3. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The claim also states "parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable" which gives no 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' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Because of this, I have had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way. Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

4.
a) It is unclear from the Particulars of claim if the claimant seeks to claim from the driver, or rely on the Protection of freedoms act 2012 (POFA 2012) to transfer liability to the keeper.
b) If the claimant seeks to claim from the driver, the defendant puts them to strict proof of who was driving as the defendant denies being the driver and will provide further clarification into this, including the defendant’s whereabouts on the date of the alleged contravention. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015).
c) If the claimant seeks to rely on the POFA 2012, it states within the act that the claimants cannot claim for more than is stated in the original notice to keeper, in this case £100. Both the claimant and their solicitors blatantly know this as this is there field of expertise. The fact they are trying to claim for monies they know they are not legally entitled to claim puts them out of compliance with the act as it clearly states they may only claim £100 in this case. The claimant is required under schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, to adhere strictly to the requirements set out within that act in order to transfer liability to the registered keeper and has failed to do so as outlined above. Therefore the defendant is not liable in this matter either way, as he was not the driver and POFA 2012 has not been complied with. This is also an attempt to further abuse the small claims process.

5. The Claimant’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. HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.
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. I suggest that 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.

6. I am yet to have knowledge of any documents provided to the court in support of the application, accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Millennium Door and Event Security, and no proof has been provided.

7. In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor did not provide me with the necessary information to defend myself against the alleged debt. They did not send me a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
c) How the “charge amount” of £243.35 has been calculated and justified.
d) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.

Unless there is some advice to the contrary by the end of the day I will be using the above as my defence. The time deadline is drawing ever closer and I have work over the next week days and then im off abroad for a long weekend so I dont want to leave it till the last minute!

I will print, sign and scan it. Im assuming i then email it to the county court at Northampton?