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 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Apr 18, 5:35 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,467 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's perfectly OK, include that and the Jopson case, and:

    Pace v Noor
    Link v Parkinson
    Pace v Lengyel

    See the Parking Prankster's case law (two pages of transcripts). Read those transcripts and mention them.

    You can probably easily find another defence citing them, already written, by searching the forum for defence Noor or defence Jopson for example.
    • Rps
    • By Rps 9th Apr 18, 5:41 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    Thank you so much, I will continue later and post another draft.
    Thanks again
    • Rps
    • By Rps 10th Apr 18, 11:50 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    Please take a look and advise if this is satisfactory to send.....I've read and typed so much i'm struggling to see if I am repeating certain points.
    I'm greatful for any advice





    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.
    It is denied that any "parking charges" as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    2. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided:
    (a) the Claim discloses no cause of action to give rise to any debt
    (b) the Claimant has simply stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    (c) 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.
    (d) 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 parking charges, 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.
    (e) 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.
    (f) on the 19th August 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 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

    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) 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 on consecutive days.
    d) The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in meaningful pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.
    e)The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the final sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed to £360.00 (excluding court fees and alleged legal costs). This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification. 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 (which was not received).
    f

    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 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.

    5. 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 Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    a) Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    a) i) there was a 'relevant obligation'; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    a) ii) 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.
    b) To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, 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.



    6. PoFA 2012 only allows the recovery of the parking charge stated on the Notice to Keeper and not court fees, damages, indemnity costs or legal representative’s costs.
    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.
    It is denied that the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.


    7. 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.
    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. 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
    a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the lighting.
    b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    c) 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.
    d) 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.
    e) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    f) It is denied that the Claimant’s signs constitute a fair or relevant contract. The terms and conditions of the sign, or the acceptance of a liability, are not synonymous with a contract. In the alternative, any contract that was established was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance as the Defendant had no means of securing a valid parking permit. The terms and conditions of parking detailed on the Claimant's signs can only apply to those with the authority to park.

    9. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that a charge is unconscionable as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.

    10. The defendant 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.
    The Defendant parked legitimately in a visitor bay, used without penalty or charge for many years, by various residents/visitors at the site. After all these years, the residents and the Defendant shared the legitimate expectation of a continuing right of way and unfettered right to use the demised parking bays.


    11. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot
    a) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and
    b) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.

    12. 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.

    13. 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 states:
    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’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.


    14. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with members at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 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.

    15. 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).

    16. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

    17. In the alternative, any agreement signed between the Claimant and the landowner must grant the Claimant the right to enter into a contract with the driver, not merely to issue charge notices. In accordance with the contra proferentem rule, any ambiguity must be interpreted against the Claimant.


    18. 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.


    19. 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.

    20. 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).

    The defendant respectfully requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
    Furthermore 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.

    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.

    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 confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    • Rps
    • By Rps 10th Apr 18, 1:19 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    Sorry to re post..
    Please take a look and advise if this is satisfactory to send.....I've read and typed so much i'm struggling to see if I am repeating certain points.
    I'm greatful for any advice





    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.
    It is denied that any "parking charges" as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    2. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided:
    (a) the Claim discloses no cause of action to give rise to any debt
    (b) the Claimant has simply stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    (c) 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.
    (d) 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 parking charges, 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.
    (e) 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.
    (f) on the 19th August 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 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

    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) 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 on consecutive days.
    d) The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in meaningful pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.
    e)The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the final sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed to £360.00 (excluding court fees and alleged legal costs). This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification. 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 (which was not received).
    f

    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 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.

    5. 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 Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    a) Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    a) i) there was a 'relevant obligation'; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    a) ii) 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.
    b) To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, 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.



    6. PoFA 2012 only allows the recovery of the parking charge stated on the Notice to Keeper and not court fees, damages, indemnity costs or legal representative’s costs.
    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.
    It is denied that the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.


    7. 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.
    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. 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
    a) the signs were not compliant in terms of the lighting.
    b) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    c) 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.
    d) 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.
    e) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    f) It is denied that the Claimant’s signs constitute a fair or relevant contract. The terms and conditions of the sign, or the acceptance of a liability, are not synonymous with a contract. In the alternative, any contract that was established was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance as the Defendant had no means of securing a valid parking permit. The terms and conditions of parking detailed on the Claimant's signs can only apply to those with the authority to park.

    9. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, the Defendant would like to point out that a charge is unconscionable as defined in the Beavis case. In the Beavis case there was an undenied contract, both sides agreed a contract was offered. In this case, the signage does not offer a contract, it forbids a driver from parking. Therefore as per the Beavis case, there is no complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule and so the PCN is unenforceable.

    10. The defendant 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.
    The Defendant parked legitimately in a visitor bay, used without penalty or charge for many years, by various residents/visitors at the site. After all these years, the residents and the Defendant shared the legitimate expectation of a continuing right of way and unfettered right to use the demised parking bays.


    11. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot
    a) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and
    b) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011.

    12. 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.

    13. 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 states:
    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’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.


    14. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with members at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 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.

    15. 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).

    16. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of the owner of the relevant land - not merely another contractor or site agent not in possession - in order to commence proceedings.

    17. In the alternative, any agreement signed between the Claimant and the landowner must grant the Claimant the right to enter into a contract with the driver, not merely to issue charge notices. In accordance with the contra proferentem rule, any ambiguity must be interpreted against the Claimant.


    18. 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.


    19. 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.

    20. 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).

    The defendant respectfully requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
    Furthermore 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.

    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.

    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 confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    • Rps
    • By Rps 10th Apr 18, 4:14 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    Hello, not sure if I need to start a new thread or will someone get back me on this one?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 10th Apr 18, 4:24 PM
    • 4,129 Posts
    • 4,997 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    No, you do NOT start a new thread

    You will have seen thedozens of new threads today
    Past a certain point you have to take resposniboitliy for your defence yourself.

    If you cant see the wood for the trees, try reading it backwads.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Apr 18, 4:30 PM
    • 11,274 Posts
    • 11,830 Thanks
    KeithP
    Is post #23 the same as post #24, or do we have to read them both and try to spot the difference?
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Apr 18, 4:56 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,467 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    10. The defendant 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. The Defendant parked legitimately in one of many unallocated visitor bays, used without penalty or charge for many years, by various residents/visitors at the site. After all these years, the residents and the Defendant shared the legitimate expectation of a continuing right of way and unfettered right to use the demised parking bays for residents and visitors, whichever one was free was granted to residents on a 'first come first served' basis, with no charge.
    Remove the first bit above, that I have struck out. Of course it's private land, she knows that and has lived there for ten years! All non Council land is private land, and it doesn't have a special meaning, means nothing new. My own house sits on private land, everyone's does, unless it's public (local authority) owned!

    I've also added some more wording above, hope it helps.

    Remove the odd 'f' hanging about under '3'.

    Remove this (below) it doesn't help. The IPC & Glad's are no longer run by the same people:

    18. 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!!!8217;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.

    19. 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.

    Replace your #18 and #19 with:


    18. The Defendant has owned the flat for more than a decade and has always enjoyed the right to park in the shared spaces. Since there has been no variation of the residents' agreements, a Managing Agent cannot impose this charging regime via an onerous back door method of 'signs and permits' with charges imposed where parking was free, with some bays effectively removed from use by residents.

    18.1. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, for such a variation to have been agreed by the residents, it is the Defendant's understanding that 75% of the parties must have consented and not more than 10% must not have objected to any proposed material change (which this nuisance most certainly is). The Defendant has never been asked about the imposition of any parking scheme and had no idea that the parking bays were now subject to unfair charges and hidden 'contract terms' that were never agreed.

    18.2. The Claimant cannot be heard to point to their sparse/unlit signs, as if the Defendant should have known about some sort of purported 'contract'; they could have put up huge billboards with neon lights and still those terms cannot affect and override the primacy of contract of leaseholders in possession.

    19. The Claimants present a significantly detrimental material change and provide no service that is for the comfort and convenience of the residents; indeed the industry is made up of rogue operators whose modus operandi is to issue predatory, unfair tickets, then sue people under the excuse of the completely different Beavis case. On 2nd February 2018 in the second reading debate about private parking firms, the House of Commons unanimously concluded: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

    19.1. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant has entered into no contract with any parking firm and no variation of the Defendant's lease has occurred.

    19.2. Bays previously used by residents for many years have effectively been removed from use, if some of the bays are now suddenly for visitors only (or if residents use them, they now face a penalty charge of £100 per day). This is a case of derogation from grant and not something that the Courts can support (Saeed v Plustrade is the authority for this assertion).

    19.3. In case number D7GF307F - UKCPM v Mr D - before Deputy District Judge Skelly on 1st February 2018 at Clerkenwell, a similar thin excuse of an argument from a private parking firm inflicting a nuisance on residents was dismissed. When not sitting as a Judge, DDJ Skelly is a barrister specialising in property law. The managing agents were named as a party to the lease, and there was a clause which said that they could make regulations for the 'comfort and convenience' of lessees. However, this could not excuse a change as intrusive and onerous as to override the grant of free resident/visitor parking, effectively restricting and charging for a right previously enjoyed, without the required consensus and deed of variation. The Judge remarked that this would be like the agents suddenly stipulating that residents had to hang a Union Jack out of the window whenever they were at home.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-04-2018 at 5:10 PM.
    • Rps
    • By Rps 10th Apr 18, 8:33 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    Much appreciated, honestly I am truly thankful.
    Will let you know how she gets on.
    • Rps
    • By Rps 13th Apr 18, 3:21 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    HI, I've had the signed copy back off my mum so am trying to fill in the defence online....it's not letting me leave the box blank....I know it recommends not to even put a full stop but it's not letting me go the next step...?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 3:23 PM
    • 4,129 Posts
    • 4,997 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You dont fill in the defence online, you file the acknowledgement online. Then you email the defefnce to the court using the CCBAC email address.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th Apr 18, 3:35 PM
    • 38,002 Posts
    • 22,102 Thanks
    Quentin
    4 days since your OP and still no defence submitted!

    Have you checked she hasn't been issued judgement in default since the original post?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 4:24 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,467 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    HI, I've had the signed copy back off my mum so am trying to fill in the defence online....it's not letting me leave the box blank....I know it recommends not to even put a full stop but it's not letting me go the next step...?
    Originally posted by Rps
    No-one on this forum does their defence on MCOL in the little box, so stop immediately and email it as a signed/dated PDF scan (like everyone else does). This is explained in the NEWBIES thread.

    To the CCBCAQ email address everyone uses on here, you can Google or search the forum for it but it MUST be the email with 'aq' in it.

    Hurry up, isn't time of the essence in your case?
    • Rps
    • By Rps 13th Apr 18, 4:28 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    I thought by doing the AOS i had a bit more time to do it properly also have had to get my husband to print then mother to go to his place of work to sign.....would she not be informed if that was the case?
    My husband is now bringing the hard copy home to send by post and i'm trying to fine the email address to send it to Northampton.
    • Rps
    • By Rps 13th Apr 18, 4:31 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    I wasn't trying to send the actual defence on it but I thought I still had to file the rest of the form online just leaving the box blank. I'm trying to find the email address now.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Apr 18, 4:33 PM
    • 11,274 Posts
    • 11,830 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...i'm trying to fine the email address to send it to Northampton.
    Originally posted by Rps
    I'm trying to find the email address now.
    Originally posted by Rps
    It's not difficult.

    As suggested by CM, stick CCBC and AQ into google and the first result returned has your answer.
    .
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th Apr 18, 5:08 PM
    • 38,002 Posts
    • 22,102 Thanks
    Quentin
    I thought by doing the AOS i had a bit more time to do it properly also have had to get my husband to print then mother to go to his place of work to sign.....would she not be informed if that was the case?
    My husband is now bringing the hard copy home to send by post and i'm trying to fine the email address to send it to Northampton.
    Originally posted by Rps
    According to your op she had been away 4 weeks during which the claim had arrived "and the respond date has passed".

    What was the date of claim and when did you do the AOS??
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 5:57 PM
    • 4,129 Posts
    • 4,997 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    The AoS simply extends your time to 3e days from date of issue. You don't get 14 days extra from the date you acknowledge
    • Rps
    • By Rps 13th Apr 18, 6:16 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    AOS was done monday....I've emailed now.
    Clearly I dont know what im doing, it's too confusing. Thank you all for your help. Will they notify my mum if the have already ruled?
    • Rps
    • By Rps 13th Apr 18, 6:21 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Rps
    The issue date was 12 March. So service date 17th...AOS was done 9th April....I'm praying for a miracle as my mum hasn't received anything to say its too late
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

279Posts Today

2,603Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Many saying sexism or ego. My suspicion as someone who works in TV is that this is a format point. I'd think whe? https://t.co/AXfrv5YqKA

  • I do always ponder when watching apprentice why Lord Sugar is "Lord Sugar" but Baroness Bradey is Karen. #bbctheapprentice

  • Lord Sugar just said "she's talking like she's a 50 year old, she knows it inside out?" Genuine question if ther? https://t.co/6cZJ9d2Cni

  • Follow Martin