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
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 12th Jun 18, 10:47 AM
    • 24Posts
    • 4Thanks
    TRNC
    Gladstone Court Claim - Visitors Bay - Help
    • #1
    • 12th Jun 18, 10:47 AM
    Gladstone Court Claim - Visitors Bay - Help 12th Jun 18 at 10:47 AM
    I have received a claim form from Gladstones (on behalf of PCM (UK) Ltd) for a PCN for parking in a visitors bay without a permit on 28/08/2017 (a bank holiday!).

    I have followed the newbies thread and sent an appeal (it was actually sent later than the 30 days) which they brushed off because of the lateness, I did reply saying these dates are arbitrary but from then on just received letters from the debt collector.

    I then received a LBC which I replied to using the newbies thread template but received none of the documents or information asked for and so I didn't reply back.

    The keeper of the vehicle parked in a visitors bay with the permission of a resident,however, they were not in possession of any visitor permits so these could not be placed on the vehicle.

    The signs at the site are these new PCM ltd signs posted on a thread by AoD on 15/05/2014 - as a new user I can't post the link

    AOS is done. Is there any information from the claim form which would help people contribute to my defence?
    Last edited by TRNC; 12-06-2018 at 10:56 AM. Reason: update
Page 2
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 3rd Jul 18, 4:23 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    NeilCr, that is the very same development!
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 4th Jul 18, 6:30 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Is anyone available to provide advice on my defence post?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jul 18, 7:36 PM
    • 61,622 Posts
    • 74,523 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You appear to be missing #7.

    168 pounds and eighty-eight pence
    Looks very odd written like that, change it to 168.88.

    And is the Defendant really wanting to deny being the driver? With a predatory PCM claim, I wouldn't (even if I wasn't the driver, I wouldn't include 'no keeper liability/the POFA because it isn't likely to have any legs as an argument and detracts from the main points).

    Your main points are buried in 10,11,12, and 13 and I would bring them up much higher so the Judge can see what it's about. Maybe as 5 - 5.5 etc., instead of the current stuff about the POFA in #5 that you don't need.

    Change all 'me' to 'The Defendant' throughout, like here (but also elsewhere):
    In the pre-court stage the Claimant refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
    They did not send me a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
    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
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 8th Jul 18, 10:44 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Thank you Coupon-mad, below is the edited defence - i Moved 10, 11, 12 and 13 to point 6 and on wards as I thought it fit better with the headings. Is there anyway we can use the articles NeilCr posted to our advantage?

    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
    2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.
    3. In the pre-court stage the Claimant refused to provide The Defendant with the necessary information they requested in order to defend themselves against the alleged debt.
    They did not send The Defendant a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
    a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
    b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
    c) How the charge amount of 168.88 has been calculated and justified.
    d) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
    Background
    4. It is admitted that The Defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
    4.1. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any parking event.
    4.2. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed. Any purported 'debt' is denied in its entirety.
    5. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    6. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts with residents and their visitors at this location, and/or to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 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.
    7. The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot:
    (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors, or
    (ii) offer parking on more onerous terms than were already granted and agreed in the lease/tenancy Agreement, or
    (iii) decide to remove parking bays from use by residents and their visitors and/or start charging for them.
    8. The Defendant parked legitimately in a visitor bay, with permission from a resident at the site.
    9. The Claimant does not require all residents at the site to hold and display parking permits, thus causing inconsistency in parking terms across the same land and causing confusion. The signage fails to inform clearly which bays require permits.
    10. The Claimant has imposed unreasonable limits of 40 visitors per flat, per year and charge residents for additional parking permits, this is an unnecessary nuisance to residents and restricts the !!!8216;peaceful enjoyment!!!8217; of the resident!!!8217;s property.
    11. The process of purchasing new visitor parking permits is onerous, expensive and time consuming. There is no alternative offered during the time of residents running out of permits and ordering new ones, it is totally unacceptable that residents are expected to have no visitors during this period.
    Unfairness - no regard for the Trader's duty for 'Fair Dealing' and Misleading Trading Practices
    12. Trade Body Codes of Practice are 'effectively binding' according to the Supreme Court in the Beavis case.
    12.1. 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.
    12.2. 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''.
    12.3. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that must be used to form contracts. It says: ''It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge.''
    12.4. 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''
    12.5. 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.
    12.5.1. 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.
    12.5.2. 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
    13. 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.
    13.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    13.1.1. 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
    13.1.2. 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
    No commercial justification to penalise a visitor - predatory conduct
    14. This Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land is at best acting 'on behalf of' another agent. It is averred that this Claimant has no more than a bare licence to put signs up under an agency agreement, and this punitive charge is in conflict with any purported commercial justification, having been issued to punish a prospective tenant.
    14.1. It is averred that there is no agreement from the landholder that bestows any rights to this non-landholder Claimant, to pursue visitors in the courts, in its own name.
    14.2. Specifically, it is the Defendant's honest belief that, even if there is a chain of authority from the landowner conferring such a right to pursue drivers of cars that have actually been parked/left at the location, this cannot reasonably allow immediate, predatory ticketing of drivers dropping off potential tenants for a viewing whilst the driver was seeking out terms of parking.
    14.3. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legitimate interest and cause of action, given the facts of the case.
    This Claim is artificially inflated, but is embarrassing for scarce Particulars
    15. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought, and it is noted that this Claim has inflated the 'charges' in a typically routine attempt at double recovery of a sum which bears no relation to the sum on any sign or parking charge notice.
    16. No indemnity costs or damages have been incurred, nor were any debt collection 'fees' paid by this Claimant, and it is averred that the sum claimed is invented out of thin air as part of the Claimant's solicitors' robo-claim model.
    17. The Claimant's solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence and no scrutiny of details. HMCS have identified thousands of similar poorly produced claims, and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
    18. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Court is respectfully invited to strike out the claim, for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a parking 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''.
    19. Should the Claim not be struck out by the Court, as an alternative when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange). This is because it is expected that the Claimant/Gladstones will use the witness statement to finally provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier in the missing Particulars of Claim. The Defendant should have the opportunity to consider the full particulars/evidence, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

    I believe that the facts contained in this Defence are true.
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 8th Jul 18, 11:07 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    EDIT: Think I am fine, just seen the day of service is 5 days after the issue date (08 June 2018) which is 13 June 2018 which makes the deadline 11 July 2018.
    Last edited by TRNC; 08-07-2018 at 11:12 AM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 8th Jul 18, 2:20 PM
    • 9,271 Posts
    • 9,504 Thanks
    KeithP
    EDIT: Think I am fine, just seen the day of service is 5 days after the issue date (08 June 2018) which is 13 June 2018 which makes the deadline 11 July 2018.
    Originally posted by TRNC
    That's correct. You have until 4pm on Wednesday to file your Defence.

    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

    1) print your Defence
    2) sign it
    3) scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4) send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5) just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    .
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 10th Jul 18, 9:23 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Hi all. Due date for submission is tomorrow at 4 so anymore advice would be really appreciated. Especially whether I can use the articles NeilCr posted at this stage?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 18, 9:33 PM
    • 61,622 Posts
    • 74,523 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You can refer to the articles but no attachments go with a defence. NEWBIES thread explains that evidence goes later, at WS stage.
    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
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 10th Jul 18, 9:46 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Ok thanks and the rest of the defence is good to go?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 18, 9:51 PM
    • 61,622 Posts
    • 74,523 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's very good, IMHO.

    As long as there is a bit larger gap between the numbers, where there is a heading, e.g. between #5 and #6 so the heading stands alone to be clearly read.

    Looks good to be signed, dated, scanned and emailed to the CCBC.
    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
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 11th Jul 18, 2:46 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Thank you for your help! Edits made and defense has been sent. Now to wait for the Directions Questionnaire!

    EDIT: Received the receipt of defence, waiting to see if the claimant contacts me and whether they wish to proceed.
    Last edited by TRNC; 14-07-2018 at 11:36 AM.
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 25th Jul 18, 11:41 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Just received the attached. From reading about this looks like a pretty standard response and reaction from Gladstones:

    http://tinypic.com/r/m8l3sm/9

    I will wait for the Directions Questionnaire to arrive and complete it as suggested by Bargepole in the newbies thread and make sure to include the bit about refusing the special request.

    Just wondering whether it would be worth having the resident write a statement about how they gave permission for the vehicle owner to park and had ran out of scratch cards at the time?
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 25th Jul 18, 12:06 PM
    • 3,290 Posts
    • 5,521 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    You might want to reply to that letter as follows

    1. The Claimant is concerned about the cost of litigation and claims they are "disproportionate"

    2. The Claimant could have helped their case and saved the court's time by supplying further and better particulars - but chose not. This puts a disproportionate burden on the Defendant in terms of time spent and other court users in terms of time wasted at court dealing with vague allegations.

    3. The Defendant is entitled to know what he needs to defend. The Court is entitled not to have to tease out a cause of action.

    4. The Defendant is concerned that vague automatically generated claims are disproportionate to the time the court needs to spend on such matters and requests the Claimant supply further and better particulars

    5. In the alternative, the court may use its management powers under CPR 3.3 so as to remove the burden of such template time-consuming claims from the court systems.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 25th Jul 18, 12:43 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Thank you IamEmanresu. Apologies for my ignorance here but would I be aiming that response to Gladstones? I am just a little confused, would going back and forth with them at this stage achieve much?
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 25th Jul 18, 1:04 PM
    • 3,290 Posts
    • 5,521 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    The letter is to the court with a copy to Gladstones.

    What happens at the DQ stage is that a judge has a quick look at the papers to see if there is

    a) a cause of action. What are they actually claiming and
    b) If there is a cause, does the defence answer it, in the broadest of terms.

    What you are doing is trying to show that as (a) is not clear, then your (b) cannot adequately answer it as the Claimant has failed to make their case clear. It becomes time consuming and is a burden to the judge hearing it (the allocating judge's colleague / 'mate'). Gladstones have simply opened the door for you to raise it by that letter.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 25-07-2018 at 1:06 PM.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 27th Jul 18, 6:18 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Thank you so much for the explanation. So should I send this along with my DQ (which has just arrived)?

    Would it be worth having the resident write a statement about how they gave permission for the vehicle owner to park and had ran out of scratch cards at the time?
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 31st Jul 18, 12:03 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Sorry to bump. Would anyone be able to help with the questions above? DQ is due on 10th August.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 31st Jul 18, 12:10 AM
    • 19,262 Posts
    • 24,479 Thanks
    Redx
    although you could get the WS written and signed , its not needed until closer to the court date

    BARGEPOLE explains this process in the post he made almost 2 years ago , linked in the NEWBIES FAQ thread in post #2

    I have no idea why you are concerning yourself with a WS when its not even got a court, a court date or a judge allocated because the claimant has not paid any court filing fee yet , plus even then it could be months later , with any WS and evidence due a few weeks before said date

    just do the DQ and the addtional response letter as mentioned earlier, then start gathering evidence and WS docs , like the BARGEPOLE timeline and LOC123 thread explain

    keep studying that NEWBIES FAQ stread post #2 , and the links as welll, get up to speed , once the DQ has been done
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 31st Jul 18, 12:35 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    TRNC
    Thanks for the reply Redx, only reason I was concerning myself is because I wasn't sure whether it is a worthwhile statement and in the DQ I have to say whether there will be any witnesses. Just didn't want to say yes it it wasn't worth it or vice versa.

    I will write up the additional response letter and have completed the DQ as shown in the NEWBIES thread.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 31st Jul 18, 12:44 AM
    • 9,271 Posts
    • 9,504 Thanks
    KeithP
    The question about number of witnesses on the DQ is just to ensure they have a big enough court room for your coach load of witnesses.

    Have as many witness statements as you like - you still only put one, that's you, in the 'number of witnesses' box.
    .
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

1,759Posts Today

7,098Users online

Martin's Twitter