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
    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 14th Jun 18, 5:56 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    Court Claim received from Gladstone on behalf of PACE Recovery
    • #1
    • 14th Jun 18, 5:56 PM
    Court Claim received from Gladstone on behalf of PACE Recovery 14th Jun 18 at 5:56 PM
    Hi All,

    I have received a county court claim from Gladstone Solicitors on behalf on PACE for 3 PCNs. I have read the newbie section and have been directed to post a new thread as my case has reached the county court claim stage.

    At this stage i need help in drafting a good defence given my circumstances. I also understand that I need to submit a response to the court within 14 days of the letter (11th June).

    First question: Do I need to provide all evidence/ detailed statement to acknowledge and contest the claim.

    Background information:

    The car park in question is a council owned car park (I believe) and administered by PACE/ ACE securities. The carpark is used by residents of the area and requires a permit, however the council also provides visitors permits which are filled in pen and valid for 24hrs. Each permit has 12 spots for a total of 12x 24 hour stays.

    I am not a resident myself, however from September through to January last year, I stayed at my brother's place, who is a resident and provided me with a visitor's parking permit, which i filled in and placed on my dashboardfor every occasion I left my car in the carpark. I had stayed at my brother's place during this time, as I was in the middle of a break-up with my partner and had nowhere to stay - I was essentially homeless. It was a very tough and stressful time for me going through a breakup, being seperated from my young son and having to crash in my brother's front room for nearly 6 months.

    The first PCN was issued in Oct and on this occasion i had forgotten to fill the permit, even though it was placed on my dashboard and also completed the previous day. The PCN was issued at 6 in the morning, however I had left my car the night before and being very tired and also going through a lot of stress it had slipped my mind.

    The second PCN was issued at the end of Nov, however my permit was filled in. When I contacted ACE at a later date, they indicated that the date was overwritten by myself. This is definitely not the case and I did not overwrite the dates. There is a darker mark on the date here as my pen did not mark well the first time and had to make the date clearer. In any case, the signage only indicates that a "valid permit" is displayed and no mention that clerical errors invalidate my permit. The reasoning for the third PCN is the same as the first.

    On each occasion, I ignored the PCN on my windshield and also letters from Ace Securities. Swiftly followed letters from Gladstone solicitors. At this point, I responded to Gladstone and in my naivety indicated that I was the named driver.

    Firstly, I had explained the above and indicated that it was a simple mistake and also pointed out that the particulars are not the same as ParkingEye v Beavis as this was not a privately owned carpark with a 2 hour time window. There are always parking spaces, so i am not depriving anyone of a carspace and that I had permission from the landowner to park (overiding any contract with the client) as I have a permit but forgot to fill in on that occasion.

    In relation to the second PCN, I stated that I have not overwritten the dates, and their photographic evidence cannot prove i did. I have the physical copy which i can present. Despite this Gladstone are adamant I have overwritten the date. This to me feels like a personal attack on my integrity as it is insinuated that I am lying. It is much more like that this is opportunistic behaviour from the client who have seen an opportunity to enhance their revenue stream by using whatever excuse they deem fit, despite it not being clear on signage or the permit what constitutes a valid permit. I've mentioned this fact and in reality it is PACE who lack integrity with their opportunistic behaviour and threats via letters.

    Following the third claim i reached out to ACE securities and using a template from Moneysavingexpert for BPA members (adjusted to refect relevant info and ACE are IPC members). ACE refused to provide information around the landowner and contract.

    The matter has now been referred to the small claims court.

    Second question: Are there any other examples of council owned carpark PCNs getting to this stage? Is ParkingEye Vs Beavis relevant here?

    Third Question: What information would best present my case and examples/ statutes etc can I use to do this?

    I hope someone is able to urgently help and Many thanks in advance all.
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Jun 18, 6:01 PM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 7,963 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:01 PM
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:01 PM
    Post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread give good guidance from receiving the Claim Form right through to any court appearance - and beyond.

    In there you will see the first thing you need to do is Acknowledge Service. There is a nice pictorial Dropbox link telling you exactly how to do that. That buys you an extra fourteen days to prepare your Defence.

    What is the date of issue on your Claim Form?
    .
    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 14th Jun 18, 6:05 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:05 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:05 PM
    Hi Keith, date of the claim form is 11th June (came through my post yesterday)
    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 14th Jun 18, 6:06 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    • #4
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:06 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:06 PM
    And thanks for that - i will refer back to the newbie FAQ
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Jun 18, 6:09 PM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 7,963 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:09 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:09 PM
    Hi Keith, date of the claim form is 11th June (came through my post yesterday)
    Originally posted by Eimran.khan
    OK, no rush.

    You need to do the AoS before 30 June and you will then have until 4pm on Monday 16th July 2018 to file your Defence.
    .
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jun 18, 6:18 PM
    • 18,410 Posts
    • 29,144 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:18 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:18 PM
    The car park in question is a council owned car park (I believe) and administered by PACE/ ACE securities.
    Write to the council to find that out. Could be useful in due course - not relevant land for the purposes of holding a keeper liable (but much will depend on what has been said to the PPC/G's in terms of identification of the driver).
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 18, 6:49 PM
    • 59,555 Posts
    • 72,719 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:49 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 18, 6:49 PM
    The second PCN was issued at the end of Nov, however my permit was filled in. When I contacted ACE at a later date, they indicated that the date was overwritten by myself. This is definitely not the case and I did not overwrite the dates. There is a darker mark on the date here as my pen did not mark well the first time and had to make the date clearer.
    An absolutely 'outrageous scam' (hansard 2.2.18).

    Does your brother own the flat, or rent?

    What paperwork or email did he receive that tells him about the visitor permits, obligations, rules & charges?

    Also what does his lease or tenancy agreement say about rights to park/visitors?

    It will not be Council owned, it will be Housing Association IMHO.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 14th Jun 18, 7:09 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 18, 7:09 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 18, 7:09 PM
    He owns the house - it!!!8217;s a freehold house, Ex-council property. The parking facility is shared by the all the houses on the road. Some are freehold and some are council.

    I!!!8217;m not sure he has any documentation but I!!!8217;ve asked him to check for me. (He either never received anything or has since forgotten about this).
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 18, 7:15 PM
    • 59,555 Posts
    • 72,719 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 14th Jun 18, 7:15 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Jun 18, 7:15 PM
    You need to turn off your Smart Punctuation, please. Forum glitch !!!8217; ruins your posts at the moment and will make people less likely to read it.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 14th Jun 18, 7:39 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    Apologies - I've done it now and checking it has been corrected.
    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 10th Jul 18, 12:06 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    Hi all,

    See below draft statement based on similar cases found on the forum. There are a couple of questions as well (which I have put in bold)


    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.

    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on [date1], [date2] and [date3] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    5. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    5.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    5.2.1. there was a 'relevant obligation'; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    5.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    Can this paragraph be used given that I have already communicated with Gladstones? I have mentioned my car being parked however I have not explicitly stated I was the driver rather the registered keeper?


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

    6. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

    7. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
    Just wanted to confirm around this point that my brother owns the freehold property and has access to the communal carpark, although cannot see this on his deed anywhere

    8. The Defendant avers that the operator's signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) 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. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


    8. Accordingly it is denied that:
    8.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    8.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    8.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    9. The Defendant parked legitimately in a marked bay, used without penalty for many years, by various residents at the site.

    10. 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. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    11. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    11.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate. 11.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    11.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee' ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and11.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    11.2. 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. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

    12. The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been parking in that space for years and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.

    12.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    12.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    12.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee's ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    12.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

    12.2. 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. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.

    12.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.

    13. 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.

    14. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    15. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    16. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    17. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    18. 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).

    19. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    20. 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 Defence are true.
    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 10th Jul 18, 12:08 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    Also - I have not put anywhere the allegation of PACE and Gladstone who claim I overwrote the permit and therefore invalidated the permit. I wondered how best to word this...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jul 18, 12:12 AM
    • 59,555 Posts
    • 72,719 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    As your first post says this to us:

    I am not a resident myself, however from September through to January last year, I stayed at my brother's place, who is a resident and provided me with a visitor's parking permit, which i filled in and placed on my dashboard for every occasion I left my car in the carpark.
    I suggest you do not commit perjury and try to tell a Court this lie:

    It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.
    Just wanted to confirm around this point that my brother owns the freehold property and has access to the communal car park, although cannot see this on his deed anywhere
    Good, it is an amenity he enjoys as a freeholder then.

    Who does the freeholder pay for the permits (PACE or a Managing Agent, or car park owner?), and has he owned the flat/enjoyed an unfettered right to park, before PACE rocked up to ruin the residents' peaceful enjoyment? Does his ownership pre-date the PPC infestation?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 11th Jul 18, 2:11 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    thanks Coupon-mad. I will remove s5 in it's entirety.

    "Good, it is an amenity he enjoys as a freeholder then.

    Who does the freeholder pay for the permits (PACE or a Managing Agent, or car park owner?), and has he owned the flat/enjoyed an unfettered right to park, before PACE rocked up to ruin the residents' peaceful enjoyment? Does his ownership pre-date the PPC infestation?"

    In relation to this question above, my brother applies to the council directly for the permit and there is no interaction with PACE. I understand that this has always been the arrangement since he bought the property in 2005. He's also mentioned that there is no paperwork around the parking and it is not mentioned in his deed
    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 11th Jul 18, 11:19 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    Hi All,

    Just to confirm that I can submit my defence by 16 Juy 4pm? (How is this calculated as I assumed it was 28 days from 11 June).

    Also just wanted to check if there what would be the best way to include the allegation made by PACE and Gladstone who claim I overwrote the permit and therefore invalidated the permit. I wondered how best to word this... I think that this point from the Parking Prankster Blog may be validata Protection

    All this means that residential parking is quite a minefield for everyone, and parking companies are quite likely to get this wrong. If a parking company gets your personal information from the DVLA for a situation where a charge is not valid, then it is highly likely that a breach of data protection laws has taken place. In this situation the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be 750."

    Final question: Where can I obtain the relevant case details/ excerpts for the cases I have quoted.

    Many thanks in advance.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Jul 18, 11:29 PM
    • 8,089 Posts
    • 7,963 Thanks
    KeithP
    Hi All,

    Just to confirm that I can submit my defence by 16 Juy 4pm? (How is this calculated as I assumed it was 28 days from 11 June).
    Originally posted by Eimran.khan
    Read from this post onwards for your answer:
    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74504548#post74504548


    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'.
    Last edited by KeithP; 11-07-2018 at 11:33 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 18, 11:38 PM
    • 59,555 Posts
    • 72,719 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Where can I obtain the relevant case details/ excerpts for the cases I have quoted.
    On the Parking Prankster case law pages.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Eimran.khan
    • By Eimran.khan 16th Jul 18, 12:25 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Eimran.khan
    I will be submitting the below statement via email tomorrow. In addition to the below - do I need to submit anything else online (I note that the defence can also be submitted here).



    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.

    Background
    3. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it.

    4. It is admitted that on [date1], [date2] and [date3] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    5. It is denied that any "parking charges or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

    6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

    7. The Defendant avers that the operator's signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) 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. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

    7. Accordingly it is denied that:
    7.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

    8. The Defendant parked legitimately in a marked bay, used without penalty for many years, by various residents at the site.

    9. 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. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.


    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms
    10. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of 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.
    10.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate. 11.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    10.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee' ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and11.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    10.2. 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. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

    11. The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. The Claimant has offered nothing by way of consideration, given the primacy of contract enjoyed by residents who already have rights of way, and have been parking in that space for years and have a reasonable expectation to continue to do so, free of harassment, predatory conduct and 'parking charges'.

    11.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
    11.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    11.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee's ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    11.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

    11.2. 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. In fact, the existing rights of residents should have been protected.

    11.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.

    12. 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.

    13. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    14. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    15. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    16. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against residents, alleging 'debts' for parking at their own homes is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    17. 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).

    18. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    19. 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 Defence are true.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Jul 18, 10:49 AM
    • 9,728 Posts
    • 9,555 Thanks
    The Deep
    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.
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

1,205Posts Today

8,293Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: Worried about your finances? Or maybe you just want to know some tips and tricks for getting the best money-saving deals??

  • About to start @thismorning talking about why everyone should check their mortgage rates and then may be able to sa? https://t.co/ulkdPb031h

  • Today's Twitter poll: Do you / would you wear fur? Reports coming out today that even some fur labeled fake actual? https://t.co/QUh6P9TVgh

  • Follow Martin