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
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 10:11 AM
    • 23Posts
    • 12Thanks
    Rps
    County court response date has passed.
    • #1
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:11 AM
    County court response date has passed. 9th Apr 18 at 10:11 AM
    Please help!
    My mum had received 2 tickets on consecutive days for unknowingly parking in a visitor permit only bay (she has owned the property for years, initially renting it out but then moved in herself and none of us realised we were parked wrongly. We have all been parking in this bay for 2 years with no tickets). My brother did some research and (wrongly) advised to ignore the initial tickets....My mum does not recall receiving NTK, can we check anywhere if she did, she did receive a letter before claim, I did look into it but not find the exact information I found today which would have been helpful at the time. My mum has since been on holiday for 4 weeks in which time she has received court papers but the respond date has passed. Can she still reply late online or will this now just go to court? the court is not local either, must she attend?

    My mother is originally dutch and does not have the vocabulary to draft any response so its down to me to try and rectify this.
    The solicitors are gladstones....

    Any advice would be much appreciated.
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Apr 18, 10:23 AM
    • 37,320 Posts
    • 21,504 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:23 AM
    • #2
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:23 AM
    If she has missed the 14 day deadline to submit a defence or aos then she could already have a ccj by default against her.


    But if the claimant has not yet asked for this she should get a defence off as soon as possible today!


    See the newbies faq thread #2 for advice and plenty of suggestions for defences.


    Your brother certainly has some duty to assist her after giving such shocking advice! (And pay any costs she now has ended up with - as ignoring the correspondence and court claim means it will be very difficult to get out of paying a ccj if one has now been issued)


    (There look to be no grounds for a set aside application should the ccj already have been issued)
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 10:30 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:30 AM
    • #3
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:30 AM
    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.
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 10:34 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    • #4
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:34 AM
    • #4
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:34 AM
    Is there a way to find out if there is a ccj or to see if there was a NTK sent?
    To be honest I'm having trouble distinguishing which is #2 on the thread, there is so much information.

    Thank you
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Apr 18, 10:35 AM
    • 37,320 Posts
    • 21,504 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #5
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:35 AM
    • #5
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:35 AM
    Time is of the essence here!


    You really need to get on with a defence NOW (rather than posting here about the circs).


    You can find out if the ccj has already been issued at the trustonline website (to search a single address is £6)


    (Though even if it shows nothing, they could be applying today to get one! - If her defence arrives before they apply then it will be accepted)
    Last edited by Quentin; 09-04-2018 at 10:38 AM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 9th Apr 18, 10:37 AM
    • 37,320 Posts
    • 21,504 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #6
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:37 AM
    • #6
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:37 AM
    To be honest I'm having trouble distinguishing which is #2 on the thread, there is so much information.

    Thank you
    Originally posted by Rps
    Each post in a thread is numbered (first one is #1)
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 10:43 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    • #7
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:43 AM
    • #7
    • 9th Apr 18, 10:43 AM
    Thank you, I'm on it..just didn't want to put in incorrect information to the court.
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 11:07 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    • #8
    • 9th Apr 18, 11:07 AM
    • #8
    • 9th Apr 18, 11:07 AM
    Sorry but do I defend all of the claim or part of the claim? My mum is willing to pay the initial tickets
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Apr 18, 11:17 AM
    • 10,008 Posts
    • 9,840 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 9th Apr 18, 11:17 AM
    • #9
    • 9th Apr 18, 11:17 AM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th Apr 18, 11:35 AM
    • 3,429 Posts
    • 4,269 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Defend all the claim for now.
    Gives you the most options.
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 2:57 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 2:59 PM
    • 61,674 Posts
    • 74,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The recipient needs to do the AOS right now, this very hour. DO THAT FIRST, following the pictures in the NEWBIES thread that walk you through the AOS stage. In Mum's name, not yours!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 3:00 PM
    • 61,674 Posts
    • 74,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And remove this, a solicitor firm can sign as a legal representative:
    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).
    Why have you copied a CEL one, instead of Johnersh's residential defence template?

    Check in the NEWBIES thread again. Don't grab the FIRST defence you see, grab the RESIDENTIAL one.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-04-2018 at 4:30 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 3:03 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    I have done that this morning...
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 3:05 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    I have tried to get bits from a couple...I will look at residential now...see if I can find it, thanks
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 4:35 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    Have looked at the residential one, I know I wont find the exact circumstances but although none of us ever realised we were wrongly parking there are signs up that we didn't notice (truthfully). Not sure how to word the defence considering. I do not however want to pay the over inflated costs.
    Here is a slightly edited version of the previous.


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

    1. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking 'parking management'. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    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.
    The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected.

    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. a) 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.
    b)The Defendant researched the matter online and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organization operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies and William Hurley, such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.


    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 4:38 PM
    • 61,674 Posts
    • 74,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    although none of us ever realised we were wrongly parking there are signs up that we didn't notice (truthfully). Not sure how to word the defence considering.
    Read this thread, and what bargepole says:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74131476#post74131476
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 5:09 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    I'm going to sleep on it, I haven't moved from my computer all day and i'm getting more confused. I've read over and over the same stuff. I think I'm out of my depth.
    Would my previous draft be ok to send in if I get my mum to sign it?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 5:14 PM
    • 61,674 Posts
    • 74,559 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Not quite ready.

    Where is Jopson v HomeGuard and the fact the Defendant is a resident relying on primacy of contract, her honest belief of a continuing right to park at the location, having parked there unfettered by tickets or any unknown contract, for two years prior? You need Johnersh's primary defence that she had rights to park that cannot be overturned without a variation of the agreement.

    Did the parking firm rock up AFTER she owned the flat? Does she own it?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-04-2018 at 5:32 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 5:23 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    She has owned it for more than 10 yrs but only lived there for approx 2 1/2. We had all parked there unknowingly for nearly 2 years as the visitor space is right next to her own private gated space. As she had just had a hip replacement the car hadn't moved for a while, as my brothers car was in her private space her car was in the visitor bay.
    As long its ok to state that any visitors she had had used the bay previously without a ticket....I wouldn't want to get us all in trouble
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

138Posts Today

1,153Users online

Martin's Twitter