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
    • DefiantNewbie
    • By DefiantNewbie 8th Apr 18, 5:25 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 7Thanks
    DefiantNewbie
    Late for replying to Claim Form
    • #1
    • 8th Apr 18, 5:25 PM
    Late for replying to Claim Form 8th Apr 18 at 5:25 PM
    hi all,
    I am new here and I have spend last 4 hours reading the forum. basically here my situation.
    on 16 May 2017 my car was parked in a carpark managed by EuroParks, the driver realized they didnt have change so they went to get change and when they came back bought a day worth of parking , continued parking and in the evening they saw the Parking notice charge on my car. now fast forward I received a Claim Form GLADSTONES solicitors dated 12/03/2018 from County Court Business Centre. I read around here I should respond within 14 days but it is more than 14 days and it is almost 27 days since issue date. what is my best course of action ?

    They are asking for claim 169.44
    Court fee 25
    Legal Representative costs 50
    Total 244.44

    I was able to respond online MoneyClaim website to fill AOS but it said the claimant can request a decision if I passed the allowed date, please advise and sorry if I missed reading a relevant post (direct me please).
    I have the original receipt where I paid for a whole day parking
    Last edited by DefiantNewbie; 08-04-2018 at 5:40 PM.
Page 2
    • DefiantNewbie
    • By DefiantNewbie 8th Apr 18, 8:02 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DefiantNewbie
    Here I have updated with what happened the day:#


    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number: ___

    Between:

    EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED v _________

    Defence

    I am ____, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle _______.

    The Defendant no longer resides at the address used for service of the claim, and that all future communications must be addressed to: ____________________________


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


    1. The PCN was issued hastily. In breach of CoP guidelines the driver was not allowed a sufficient amount of time in order to park and read any signs in order that they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site before the enforcement action was taken.
    2.As soon as the driver read signs and locate the correct change in their pocket, the driver did buy a parking ticket that covered the entire day and has the receipts.
    3. 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) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    b) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    c) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no 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. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

    d) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.


    4. 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 14 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 as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible 244.44 for outstanding debt and damages.

    5. 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 (or even admin) costs' were incurred. I deny the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever.

    6. 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.

    7. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.


    a) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

    (i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (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.

    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds 100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    8. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not 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.

    9. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.!

    10. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it 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.

    11. 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.

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

    (a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 12th march 2018.

    (b) 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 and no reasonable prospects of success.

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

    Signed
    Date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Apr 18, 8:16 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would give this a heading:

    CHANGE OF ADDRESS - COURT AND CLAIMANT PLEASE UPDATE YOUR RECORDS
    The Defendant no longer resides at the address used for service of the claim, and that all future communications must be addressed to:

    XXXXXX
    The PCN was issued hastily. In breach of CoP guidelines
    Don't use acronyms, until you have firstly written the thing in full, so this should be:

    The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued hastily, in breach of their Trade Body Code of Practice (CoP) guidelines
    ...then after that, you can use 'PCN' and CoP'.

    I would remove these because this goes on about revenge claims(?) and it's not trespass:

    9. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

    10. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it 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.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-04-2018 at 9:34 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.

    • DefiantNewbie
    • By DefiantNewbie 8th Apr 18, 8:29 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DefiantNewbie
    I updated the address part and put the explained then Acronyms.

    do I understand correctly that I need to remove point 9 and 10?

    aslo to be correct the CCBC email address is : ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
    Last edited by DefiantNewbie; 08-04-2018 at 8:32 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Apr 18, 9:02 PM
    • 8,026 Posts
    • 7,882 Thanks
    KeithP
    Yes, remove points 9. and 10.

    The correct CCBC email address to send a Defence to is : ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk
    .
    • DefiantNewbie
    • By DefiantNewbie 8th Apr 18, 9:23 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DefiantNewbie
    I will now print sign and send it . I will let you know how it progress

    Thanks for your help!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Apr 18, 9:36 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK good!

    Get that emailed and then read the NEWBIES thread to be ready for the DQ and the fact that Gladstones will send a letter saying the matter is 'straightforward', urging for it to be heard on the papers.

    Which you will disagree with! (search the forum for Gladstones straightforward papers).
    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.

    • DefiantNewbie
    • By DefiantNewbie 8th Apr 18, 9:45 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DefiantNewbie
    just fyi, I did not get auto-reply from the mailbox: ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk , is that normal ?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Apr 18, 10:01 PM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ring the CCBC tomorrow and check that the email was received and ask them to please urgently update MCOL such that the defence has been lodged, as time is of the essence.
    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.

    • DefiantNewbie
    • By DefiantNewbie 9th Apr 18, 11:56 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DefiantNewbie
    I have called them today and they have confirmed for me that my defence has been filed and my address and MCOL got updated, the case will proceed to a judge. fingers crossed so far! Coupon-Mad i will research and read on the Gladstones straightforward papers next

    I really appreciate the help I have received on this forum, special thanks to Coupon-mad , RedX, KeithP and others!
    • DefiantNewbie
    • By DefiantNewbie 9th May 18, 4:02 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DefiantNewbie
    hi again!

    Since last time I got one letter from Gladstone saying they want it to considered on paper and asking me to agree then I get one letter from County Court Business Centre "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" from reading around I ignored Gladstone's letter. I am reading on answering court one (I will get back if I have questions), only thing is I have to send it back by 14th. I will work on it tonight,
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th May 18, 5:15 PM
    • 2,823 Posts
    • 3,516 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Back to reading post 2 of the newbies thread, and also writing the obvious covering letter stating you require a hearing in person because far from being simple, you will need to question their witness on X, Y, Z deficiencies.
    • DefiantNewbie
    • By DefiantNewbie 9th May 18, 10:58 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    DefiantNewbie
    Thanks nosferatu1001, do I add the cover letter to the DC form (N180) that I have just filled ? I already added this text into D1 box "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)

    Also I was wondering if I send the document as a scanned copy to court instead of postal mail?
    Last edited by DefiantNewbie; 09-05-2018 at 11:11 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th May 18, 1:06 AM
    • 59,444 Posts
    • 72,604 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you email it to the CCBCAQ email, and of course you'll already (hopefully) know from the NEWBIES thread, you have to send a copy to the other side, of everything you file from now on.
    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.

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

130Posts Today

1,603Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Donald Trump has apologised and admits he said would when he meant "wouldn't" when siding with Putin over US inte? https://t.co/z1CRJSkEO1

  • About to watch #AckleyBridge on C4+1. I do enjoy it, even though I always feel somewhat stressed and depressed after watching.

  • RT @stevenowottny: 19/30 UK airports now charge you for spending 10 mins dropping someone off at the terminal - good investigation from @je?

  • Follow Martin