Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 18th Oct 17, 5:18 PM
    • 45Posts
    • 21Thanks
    theblackfox
    Gladstones / Euro Car Parks / CCJ / Wrong Address
    • #1
    • 18th Oct 17, 5:18 PM
    Gladstones / Euro Car Parks / CCJ / Wrong Address 18th Oct 17 at 5:18 PM
    Hey all!

    I've spent the past week living in these forums reading post after post and it has provided me with some fantastic information with my query which I will explain shortly, I just require a little bit of guidance to make sure I am heading in the right direction.

    ===============
    SITUATION

    After a recent trip to the mortgage advisers last weekend I have recently discovered there is an open CCJ claim against me for a parking fine from Europarkingservices/Gladstones Solicitors registered in February of this year. This is the first I have heard about it as I received no letters or paperwork regarding this because they have been sending everything to an old address which I moved out of at the end of 2014 which can be proven by banking statements, credit check and electoral roll.

    I did not bother to pay or contact them about the parking ticket as I feel it was unjustified and have photo evidence to prove this waiting for them to contact me, but as they were contacting the wrong address I had no chance to appeal or defend it. I assumed they were not pursuing it due to not hearing from them.

    I cannot confirm or deny if the registered keeper details were correct as the car has been sold.

    ===================

    N224 / WITNESS STATEMENT / DEFENCE

    I followed the Saggi case and have based my N244 and Witness statement almost identical to that but have the following query's :

    1. I'm not sure when/where I should add the photo evidence I have in regards to the perfectly parked car with a valid ticket or if I should even mention this at all?

    2. In Saggi's case it is not Gladstones or Euro Car Parks, does that make any part of the witness statement invalid?

    3. In notes of the N244 document, it says "Please indicate in a covering letter any dates that you are unavailable within the next six weeks. I have dates I can't do, how/where do I write this and what's a covering letter?

    ============

    Any other help and advice would be much appreciated.

    I can send or post any further information if requested.

    Cheers
    Last edited by theblackfox; 18-10-2017 at 5:27 PM. Reason: Removed real name
Page 2
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 7th Jan 18, 5:38 PM
    • 9,514 Posts
    • 9,285 Thanks
    The Deep
    It is her fault, she does not have to take the bait.

    I am puzzled about why you are concerning yourself with defending this. Has the judge told you to? Has the PPC indicated that they wish to have the case relisted?

    MUI that a set aside is usually automatic if the papers were not properly served, and acted in timely manner.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 7th Jan 18, 6:21 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    I think I'm just spiraling into confusion and getting wires crossed now

    I received my 'Notice Of Hearing Of Application' in November stating:
    "The hearing of the defendant's application for a set-aside judgment will take place at 11:00am on 21 February 2018 at the county court..."

    I was under the impression I had to prepare a draft defence which would be submitted no later than 10 days prior to the date above and take a copy of this and all other paperwork/evidence to the hearing.

    Is this not the case?
    Are you saying it could automatically be set aside even though a hearing has been scheduled?

    Apologies for my confusion, I thought I was all on track with this.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jan 18, 12:37 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I received my 'Notice Of Hearing Of Application' in November stating:
    "The hearing of the defendant's application for a set-aside judgment will take place at 11:00am on 21 February 2018 at the county court..."

    I was under the impression I had to prepare a draft defence
    I agree, the Defendant needs to be able to show there are grounds to defend the claim with prospects of success.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 8th Jan 18, 10:03 AM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    Thanks Coupon-mad! This brings me back round to my previous post query:

    Hey guys, still putting a draft defence document together but have a query:

    As my situation is very close to the Saggi case, in her results post it mentions nothing about a Defence for the Set aside hearing:
    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5581374&highlight=saggi+case&page =2#25

    How do I defend myself if I have no information from the claimant?
    Do I base my defence on what I wrote in my witness statement?
    Originally posted by theblackfox
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 8th Jan 18, 11:59 AM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,442 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You defend as best you can.

    You of course state you have no information, so you have constructed a defence as best you can. This would normally include
    0) if relevant to you, No keeper liability
    1) Standing
    2) signage
    3) amount is hidden and not a core term, fails the "red hand rule"

    For a set aside, IF you can prove that there was a lack of service, then the set aside is automatic. This HAPPENS DURING THE HEARING - you seem confused on this.

    IF the set aside is automatic, then no defence is needed. However, you should be pragmatic - if you want to not include a defence, you risk the court deciding there was no automatic set aside rigjht, and you could then struggle.

    So, I would suggest you include a defence.
    What did the Draft Order you sent with your application say? You should have said something like:
    1) set aside the judgement of Y date
    2) claimant to repay costs of £255 within 14 days of the set aside hearing

    Because you dont want the judge to reserve these until, presuming you get the CCJ set aside, an actual hearing on the claim. If the C decides not to go ahead to a hearing, you will lose the chance to ask for the £255 fee from them. So you MUST get this talked about ion the hearing.
    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 8th Jan 18, 8:53 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    Thank you nosferatu1001!

    I will make sure I include the points you mentioned and thank you for confirming the automatic set aside information.

    My draft order I sent along with my witness statement is as follows:

    ================
    It is ordered that:

    1. The judgment dated 14/02/17 be set aside.

    2. The Defendant shall file and serve its Defence by 4pm following 14 days after the date on which the judgement is set aside.

    3. The Claimant do pay the Defendant's costs of this application to the sum of £255.

    4. The Claimant has permission to file and serve a reply if so required.
    ===================

    Any further information and advice is always appreciated.

    Thanks again
    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 14th Jan 18, 4:00 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    Hey all!

    I've put together my first draft defence document if you would be kind enough to review it and provide me with any feedback/amendments you have.

    Cheers

    ====================================

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number XXXXXXXX


    BETWEEN:
    Euro Parking Services Limited (Claimant)
    v
    XXX XXXXX (Defendant)




    ________________________________

    DRAFT DEFENCE

    ________________________________

    I am XXX XXXXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter and this is my supporting Statement in support of my application dated 19/10/17:

    Preliminary

    1. The claimant has failed to prove reasonable steps taken to ascertain the address of the defendant!!!8217;s current residence or place of business (!!!8216;current address!!!8217;) as outlined in Civil Procedure Rules 6.9(3)-(4):

    (3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) [i.e. referring to the Defendant's usual or last known address] is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant!!!8217;s current residence or place of business (!!!8216;current address!!!8217;).

    (4) Where, having taken the reasonable steps required by paragraph (3), the claimant !!!8211;
    (a) ascertains the defendant!!!8217;s current address, the claim form must be served at that address; or
    (b) is unable to ascertain the defendant!!!8217;s current address, the claimant must consider whether there is
    (i) an alternative place where; or
    (ii) an alternative method by which, service may be effected.

    1.1. The claimant should assume that lapse of time, or a failure to respond to correspondence, gives rise to a risk that the defendant has moved.

    1.2. The claimant took no due diligence to check that the details that they had on their systems were up to date

    1.3. The claimant had no correspondence from the defendant to allow them to assume the address was still current;

    1.4. Despite having no affirmation that the address was current and ample time to check, The claimant issued proceedings anyway.

    2. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
    !!!8220;If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the !!!8216;Creditor!!!8217; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner!!!8217;s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.!!!8221;

    3. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is !!!8216;roboclaims!!!8217; and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

    !!!8220; 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 !!!8216;Money owed £5000!!!8217;,
    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 !!!8221;

    4. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;

    4.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

    4.2. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

    4.3. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states !!!8220;You have not replied to the claim form!!!8221; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.

    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    4.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their !!!8216;roboclaim!!!8217; particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and !!!8216;providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.!!!8217;

    4.4.2. On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 !!!8211; 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    Background

    5. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which I believe is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it and is no longer owned by the defendant since March 2017.

    6. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting / giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.

    7. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    7.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")

    7.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

    7.2.1. There was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and

    7.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    7.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    8. The defendant wrote to the claimant on ******* after being advised on the phone to email, asking for information and clarification on the particulars.

    The claimant has not responded with any information.

    As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors who!!!8217;s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

    The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

    9. Euro Parking Services Limited are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

    9.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

    9.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

    9.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    10. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the judgement has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has resulted in a total of £250.81 . This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

    10.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

    10.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    10.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    Failure to set out clear parking terms

    11. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

    11.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.

    11.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

    11.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and

    11.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

    12. 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).

    13. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    14. 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).

    15. 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.

    16. 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.


    Statement of Truth:
    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
    Full name: XXX XXX

    Dated 14/01/18

    Signed: __________________________________
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jan 18, 6:38 PM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    This point muddles up the two 'contracts' in play:

    2. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says -
    'If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ''Creditor'' within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner!!!8217;s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.'
    They should have supplied the contract, but what that means is NOT the landowner contract. It's the contract they allege was breached - i.e. pictures of the terms on signs. So it makes no sense to talk about them not supplying the 'contract' (sign) then in the same breath go on about the landowner contract (different subject).

    This could be added to, as suggested:

    6. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting, loading/unloading, dropping off or picking up a passenger or giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.

    6.1. None of these constitute 'parking' under the definition explained in detail In the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, heard on Appeal in Oxford Court on 2016, by Circuit Judge HHJ Charles Harris QC and therefore a persuasive finding as well as being on all fours with this case.

    6.2. It was held that: ''it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time'' and ''I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant's car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not 'parked'. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent's notice.''
    I would then add that:

    This Claimant is notorious for predatory tactics such as hiding from drivers then ticketing cars immediately and allowing no grace period to even read the terms on a sign. Such conduct is banned by this Claimant's Trade Body, the IPC, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of their compliance with the Code of Practice, and to disclose to the court their current position regarding IPC audits, since it is believed the Claimant may be under warning of/already accumulated sanctions by the IPC which will add weight to the Defendant's submissions regarding their unfair business practices at this location.

    You could also include the 'Unfairness' section from this example, removing the PCM specifics as yours is Euro:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73663604#post73663604



    Can you actually stand in court and honestly 'deny' (for certain) being the driver? If not, don't say this, change it to just say there is no evidence:

    7. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 28-02-2018 at 6:44 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 14th Jan 18, 8:28 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    Thanks Coupon-mad. Just making the changes now, just one query:

    1. The 'Unfairness' section you recommend including refers to PCM but my claimant is Euro Parking Services Limited, does this section still apply?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 18, 12:13 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, sorry I was reading yours as if it was PCM - use the unfairness argument if you are saying that the operation was predatory. And yes, remove specifics that talk about PCM and Watchdog!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 15th Jan 18, 1:53 AM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    Thanks Coupon-mad. I have changed it around a bit, made the changes, added the recommended section in and also noticed a few points I referred to the IPC which is false because Euro Car Parks are members of the BPA so corrected them and added a couple of points about BPA.

    If you could double check it over, and let me know if I need any other reference about BPA would be much appreciated!

    ============================

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number XXXXXXXXX


    BETWEEN:
    Euro Parking Services Limited (Claimant)
    v
    XXXXXXXX (Defendant)




    ________________________________

    DRAFT DEFENCE

    ________________________________

    I am XXXXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter and this is my supporting Statement in support of my application dated 19/10/17:

    Preliminary

    1. The claimant has failed to prove reasonable steps taken to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’) as outlined in Civil Procedure Rules 6.9(3)-(4):

    (3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) [i.e. referring to the Defendant's usual or last known address] is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).

    (4) Where, having taken the reasonable steps required by paragraph (3), the claimant –
    (a) ascertains the defendant’s current address, the claim form must be served at that address; or
    (b) is unable to ascertain the defendant’s current address, the claimant must consider whether there is
    (i) an alternative place where; or
    (ii) an alternative method by which, service may be effected.
    1.1. The claimant should assume that lapse of time, or a failure to respond to correspondence, gives rise to a risk that the defendant has moved.
    1.2. The claimant took no due diligence to check that the details that they had on their systems were up to date
    1.3. The claimant had no correspondence from the defendant to allow them to assume the address was still current;
    1.4. Despite having no affirmation that the address was current and ample time to check, The claimant issued proceedings anyway.

    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. 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 ”

    3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;

    3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

    3.2. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

    3.3. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “You have not replied to the claim form” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

    3.4.2. On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    Background

    4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ****** which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.

    5. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting, loading/unloading, dropping off or picking up a passenger or giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.

    5.1. None of these constitute 'parking' under the definition explained in detail In the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, heard on Appeal in Oxford Court on 2016, by Circuit Judge HHJ Charles Harris QC and therefore a persuasive finding as well as being on all fours with this case.

    5.2. It was held that: “it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time” and ''I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.’'

    6. There is no evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    6.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")

    6.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

    6.2.1. There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and

    6.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    6.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.


    7. The defendant wrote to the claimant on ******* after being advised on the phone to email, asking for information and clarification on the particulars.
    The claimant has not responded with any information.
    As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors who’s Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

    The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.


    8. Euro Parking Services Limited are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

    8.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

    8.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

    8.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the judgement has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has resulted in a total of £250.81 . This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

    9.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

    9.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    9.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    Unfairness - no regard for the Trader's duty for 'Fair Dealing' and Misleading Trading Practices

    10. Trade Body Codes of Practice are 'effectively binding' according to the Supreme Court in the Beavis case.

    10.1. Further, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations identifies at section 5 'Misleading Actions': (3) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph if - (b) it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—
    (i) the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and
    (ii) the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational.

    10.2. The Court's attention is drawn to the “Red Hand Rule”, as set out in the leading judgment in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3, where Denning MR stated: “The more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient”.

    10.3. In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court Judges reiterated the requirement for fair and open dealing, at paragraph 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

    10.4. Courts must now consider the fairness of a term, where it is not 'prominent and transparent'. Unfair terms here include the penalty fine itself, charges hidden in small print, lack of any fair grace period for the driver to seek out, read decide whether to accept any advertised parking contract, misleading and predatory conduct, added costs not specified prominently in the alleged contract, disproportionate default charges, non-observance of a Code of Practice. Such conduct and terms breach Part 2 'Unfair Contract Terms' of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA) which was enacted after the Beavis case final hearing, and remains untested in the context of unfair parking penalty charges.

    10.5. The Court's attention is drawn to the CRA at SCHEDULE 2, a non-exhaustive list of 'Consumer contract terms which may be regarded as unfair' which include clear references to conduct that is on all fours with that of this Claimant, and their solicitors.

    10.5.1. The CRA requires that key terms of a contract, including price, must be assessed for fairness by a court, where those terms are not both 'prominent and transparent' (which the Defendant avers they are not). The CRA, at para 71, sets out the duty of court to consider fairness of a consumer contract term: ''(2) The court must consider whether the term is fair even if none of the parties to the proceedings has raised that issue or indicated that it intends to raise it''.



    Failure to set out clear parking terms

    11. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

    11.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.

    11.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

    11.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association ("BPA") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and

    11.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

    11.2. Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    "7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
    (a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
    (b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
    (c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
    (d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
    (e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement"

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim

    12. 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).

    13. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    14. 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).

    15. 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.

    16. 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.


    Statement of Truth:
    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.
    Full name: XXX XXX

    Dated 14/01/18

    Signed: __________________________________
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Jan 18, 12:46 PM
    • 7,720 Posts
    • 7,466 Thanks
    KeithP
    I am XXXXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter and this is my supporting Statement in support of my application dated 19/10/17:
    ....................
    .
    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 21st Jan 18, 7:27 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    Thanks Keith.

    Any further feedback from anyone?
    Anything not making sense in there regarding my case?

    Let me know any final thoughts before I sign this off for a final draft.

    Cheers
    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 31st Jan 18, 3:03 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    Hey guys,

    3 weeks till my hearing. Draft is pretty much ready (Any feedback still welcome!)

    Do I email, post this or just take it along with me to my hearing for reference/show the judge.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 31st Jan 18, 3:07 PM
    • 7,720 Posts
    • 7,466 Thanks
    KeithP
    Do I email, post this or just take it along with me to my hearing for reference/show the judge.
    Originally posted by theblackfox
    Surely the court has told you when you must submit your defence?

    You cannot simply turn up with it on the day.

    You need to re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread where you will find guidance on exactly how to submit your defence.
    Last edited by KeithP; 31-01-2018 at 3:10 PM.
    .
    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 31st Jan 18, 3:29 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    All I have had through is the 'Notice of Hearing of Application' letter which says:

    The hearing of the defendant's application for set aside judgment will take place at XX:XX on XX XXXXX 2018 at the County Court at XXXXX.

    That's it.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Feb 18, 12:35 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's a set aside hearing isn't it, so it makes sense that you have not had to exchange a WS. You might find he Judge isn't too bothered about going into the defence and will want you to show proof that you'd moved, when you updated your keeper data, and that you didn't get the claim form because the PPC didn't bother with any due diligence to find you.

    Make it clear that you would have defended, had you known about this claim.

    So you ask that the Court orders your costs & fees to be paid by the claimant, if they discontinue after the set aside. Make it clear that you were there to be found with a simple trace, and were not in hiding. Did they have your email address all along, if you appealed online? Of so, then say so.

    The Judge needs to know that you didn't get the court papers and acted immediately you found out, and that you have reasonable chances of success in defending the claim. So tell the Judge that even once the CCJ is set aside you fear being left with huge fees due to this CCJ from a rogue parking firm.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 01-02-2018 at 1:12 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 1st Feb 18, 12:57 AM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    Yea it's a set aside. And it's Euro Car Parks not CEL.

    In my original post I mentioned I cannot confirm or deny if the registered keeper details were correct as the car has been sold before I even knew about this CCJ and stupidly have no records kept for that vehicle. Not sure what else I can take to prove I had moved address.

    But, I thought based on other feedback on this post that it has a chance of being set aside based on other things etc?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Feb 18, 1:11 AM
    • 58,549 Posts
    • 72,051 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I am 99% sure your defence said CEL in the claimant title, earlier?! Maybe it's me... all cases are a blur!

    I thought based on other feedback on this post that it has a chance of being set aside based on other things etc?
    We've only ever seen one set aside declined and that's being appealed by sassi, who also won another defended case v Gladstones and that poster was granted £1500 in costs!

    So yes you do have a very very good chance of set aside, not sure what 'other things' you mean but your main job is to prove you didn't get the claim form, and why, and that you acted quickly when you saw the CCJ, and can defend this.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • theblackfox
    • By theblackfox 1st Feb 18, 1:21 AM
    • 45 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    theblackfox
    Haha no worries!

    Yea I'm going to tackle it the same way as the noobie example of Saggi's case.

    Would you advise going ahead with submitting my draft defence to the court just for extra backup of information or just take a copy with my for my own reference when defending any points in the room?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

66Posts Today

1,936Users online

Martin's Twitter