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
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 17th Jun 18, 9:03 PM
    • 38Posts
    • 8Thanks
    masatoi
    Court Claim form from UK Car park management & Gladstone
    • #1
    • 17th Jun 18, 9:03 PM
    Court Claim form from UK Car park management & Gladstone 17th Jun 18 at 9:03 PM
    Hi
    I received a claim from for a parking charge of £250 inc fees from UK Car park management & Gladstone.

    Iíve already acknowledged the claim (Received a confirmation) and now Iím preparing for the defence form.
    Iíll state the details below Iíd like to have advice about what my arguments can be.

    ---------
    On 2nd March 2017 I parked a lease car from a Volvo dealer within a communal parking slot within private car park of my flat I live as a owner.

    This slot is pay & display during day time and after 17:30 it becomes permit holders only.
    I usually park my car at my allocated space but on that day I left my permit in my car and didnít have one for the lease car and I thought the slot I parked was free after 17:30 rather than permit holders only so I parked the lease car overnight and got a ticket on windscreen next morning.

    I was going to ignore it but because it was a lease car I was worried that Volvo could pay to UK Car park management using my card details if they get PCN.

    So I sent a letter to UK Car park management to confirm that I was the driver at the time of the incident. Since then Iíve been receiving letters from UK Car park management, Gladstone and debt collector. But I ignored all of them.

    I didnít receive anything for a while then I got a claim form on 13th June 2018.
    ---------


    I did my research about defence and Iím thinking to send part 18 request before I send my defence form. And I will include their response in my defence form.
    Is this a good idea?

    part 18 request
    Please search for part 18 request on padi zendisk dot com

    With regards to argument point from my understanding in my case when I parked the slot the space was permit holders only so there was no contract but it was trespass which only can be claimed by the landowner.
    Is this correct?

    Your advice would be much appreciated.
Page 2
    • NeilCr
    • By NeilCr 25th Jun 18, 7:02 PM
    • 2,398 Posts
    • 3,349 Thanks
    NeilCr
    Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 is the issue. Owner/Directors are the main culprits in believing "common sense" overrides legal rights. And usually they are not insured if it goes belly up and someone issues a claim against them.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    Fair enough.

    I guess I am just used, as a director, to most other residents not being interested at all in what we are doing - until it directly impacts on them!

    As you said earlier, then, it is going to turn on the word reasonable in #10. I still think that knowing why the restrictions were bought in may help. And I still have concerns that it is a communal bay

    Thanks Ian
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 25th Jun 18, 10:37 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    My permit isn't car specific. Unless it's a large commercial vehicle any car can park in the yellow (communal) bay with a permit displayed. And please refer to #3 for the rest.

    I'm getting a bit confused and lost now.

    I'd need more specific advice or criticism on my Defence e.g. Remove that line or Add this line etc.

    Is it ok to stick with the defence I posted? or Do I need to start something else from scratch?

    Many thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Jun 18, 11:32 AM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Needs a heading: DEFENCE

    And I have added more below:



    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXX XXXX (Defendant)


    DEFENCE


    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 ask the Court to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars. Alternatively, to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand on his woeful Particulars by orchestrating a typical parking firm 'ambush' at a later stage of these proceedings.

    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.


    Background

    3. It is admitted that at the material time the Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration mark REG NUMBER which is the subject of these proceedings.

    4. It is admitted that on 02 March 2017 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ADDRESS where the Defendant is a leasehold owner of a residential property.


    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

    5. It is denied that the Defendant was or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park a vehicle at his own home. in circumstances where an Residents at this property are entitled to use the communal yellow parking bays.

    5.1. This Claimant was not at this location when the Defendant purchased the flat, arriving some two years later. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by the later appearance of this Claimant who offered no contract to residents. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court and if the Claimant is unaware of the primacy of contract of the leaseholders, this is due to their own negligence and lack of due diligence before starting enforcement at this location.

    5.2. The Defendant has owned the flat for more than xx years and always enjoyed the right to park in the shared spaces as well as in a leased bay. Since there has been no variation of the residents' agreements, neither a Managing Agent or Residents' Association would be able to impose this onerous charging regime via a back door method of cardboard signs pinned up by the communal bins with cable ties, with charges imposed where parking was free, with some bays effectively removed from daily use by residents.

    5.3. 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).

    5.4. 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. 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''.

    5.5. The Defendant is a leaseholder and has never been afforded the opportunity to expressly agree or object to UKCPM's regime. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant has entered into no contract with this Claimant and no variation of the Defendant's lease agreement has occurred and it will never be agreed for an ex-clamper to cause this level of nuisance on site, suing residents and telling the Managing Agents that they cannot (or will charge to) cancel unfair 'tickets' until the contract is ended.

    5.6. Bays previously shared by residents and commercial tenants have effectively been removed from daily residential use and made a 'pay and display' commercial venture during the day, which is a derogation from grant and not something that the Courts can support.

    5.7. The Defendant was aware that the charging hours in these purported 'pay and display' bays end at 5.30pm so the Defendant believed that the car (which was temporarily leased) could be parked by a leaseholder in such a bay overnight, at home. There is no commercial value to the bays after tariff charging hours, so there is no legitimate interest excuse for this Claimant to fall back on; an extortionate £100 charge is punitive and unrecoverable.

    5.8. If the Claimant wanted to restrict or charge residents or visitors for parking during hours of darkness, then the mechanism is already there to charge tariffs. No commercial value applies to these spaces at night, at a time when they would only be needed by residents, and therefore any fine is predatory, unjustified and disproportionate.


    Any contract or obligation for leaseholders to display a permit is denied

    6. Whilst a 'permit' was provided by the Claimant when this Claimant appeared on site, the letter provided for no relevant contract or relevant obligation. There was no mention of additional terms on any signage that could affect a resident, and no 'fine' or charge was stated at all in the paperwork. There was no risk of a fine for non-display of the permit, which the Defendant displayed in his main vehicle merely as a courtesy.

    6.1. The Defendant avers that the operators signs cannot:

    (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by leaseholders, residents and their visitors and
    (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.

    6.2. 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, or that
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit.

    7.3. 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 this same 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 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.


    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clear parking terms

    8. 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 penalty sum imposed for any breach of parking terms were prominent, and stated in simple clear large lettering - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to the primary defence above, inadequate.

    8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a parking space value to be protected overnight, after the daytime pay and display hours. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage and can show no legitimate interest in fining leasehold residents. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.


    No locus - the Claimant is not the freeholder nor authorised by the freeholder

    9. 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.

    10. The Claimant appears to rely upon a purported contract with a company called 'Rosehill Triangle (2003) Management Company Ltd'. This is not the freeholder and neither is it the Managing Agent. Companies house shows that Rosehill Triangle (2003) Management Company Ltd is what appears to be a 'front' - a company on paper but with no registrable person listed as a Director of the company. This paper company cannot override the rights of residents and are not a named party in the lease.


    Added costs have not been incurred - attempt at double recovery

    11. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported 'indemnity' costs which the Defendant submits have never actually been incurred. It is believed that Gladstones Solicitors offer their services to IPC members on free (or nominal) terms, since the IPC and Gladstones shared Directorships, causing an alarming conflict of interests exposed in the Parliamentary debate in the House of Commons in February.

    12. The added costs are in fact artificially invented figures, which represent a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the 'charge' was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to mainly represent a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set, deliberately high deterrent. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime and no damages/loss/debt collection costs could have been claimed on top, because none existed.

    13. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge for a valuable retail parking space was not a penalty, but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.

    14. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.


    signed


    date
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 28-06-2018 at 10:35 AM.
    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
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 1st Jul 18, 11:50 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    Hi,

    I was gonna send the defence but I thought it would be good to get it double checked.

    Please let me know if anything is missing or needs amending.

    And I hope this will be useful for other users who are in similar situations.

    Thank you very much.




    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: XXXXXX

    BETWEEN:

    UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXX XXXXXX (Defendant)

    DEFENCE


    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 ask the Court to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars. Alternatively, to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand on his woeful Particulars by orchestrating a typical parking firm 'ambush' at a later stage of these proceedings.

    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.


    Background

    3. It is admitted that at the material time the Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration mark REG NUMBER which is the subject of these proceedings.

    4. It is admitted that on 02 March 2017 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ADDRESS where the Defendant is a leasehold owner of a residential property.

    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

    5. It is denied that the Defendant was not permitted to park a vehicle at his own home. Residents at this property are entitled to use the communal yellow parking bays.

    5.1. This Claimant was not at this location when the Defendant purchased the flat, arriving some two years later. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by the later appearance of this Claimant who offered no contract to residents. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court and if the Claimant is unaware of the primacy of contract of the leaseholders, this is due to their own negligence and lack of due diligence before starting enforcement at this location.

    5.2. The Defendant has owned the flat for more than 4 years and always enjoyed the right to park in the shared spaces as well as in a leased bay. Since there has been no variation of the residents' agreements, neither a Managing Agent or Residents' Association would be able to impose this onerous charging regime via a back door method of cardboard signs pinned up by the communal bins with cable ties, with charges imposed where parking was free, with some bays effectively removed from daily use by residents.

    5.3. 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).

    5.4. 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. 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''.

    5.5. The Defendant is a leaseholder and has never been afforded the opportunity to expressly agree or object to UKCPM's regime. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant has entered into no contract with this Claimant and no variation of the Defendant's lease agreement has occurred and it will never be agreed for an ex-clamper to cause this level of nuisance on site, suing residents and telling the Managing Agents that they cannot (or will charge to) cancel unfair 'tickets' until the contract is ended.

    5.6. Bays previously shared by residents and commercial tenants have effectively been removed from daily residential use and made a 'pay and display' commercial venture during the day, which is a derogation from grant and not something that the Courts can support.

    5.7. The Defendant was aware that the charging hours in these purported 'pay and display' bays end at 5.30pm so the Defendant believed that the car (which was temporarily leased) could be parked by a leaseholder in such a bay overnight, at home. There is no commercial value to the bays after tariff charging hours, so there is no legitimate interest excuse for this Claimant to fall back on; an extortionate £100 charge is punitive and unrecoverable.

    5.8. If the Claimant wanted to restrict or charge residents or visitors for parking during hours of darkness, then the mechanism is already there to charge tariffs. No commercial value applies to these spaces at night, at a time when they would only be needed by residents, and therefore any fine is predatory, unjustified and disproportionate.


    Any contract or obligation for leaseholders to display a permit is denied

    6. Whilst a 'permit' was provided by the Claimant when this Claimant appeared on site, the letter provided for no relevant contract or relevant obligation. There was no mention of additional terms on any signage that could affect a resident, and no 'fine' or charge was stated at all in the paperwork. There was no risk of a fine for non-display of the permit, which the Defendant displayed in his main vehicle merely as a courtesy.

    6.1. The Defendant avers that the operators signs cannot:

    (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by leaseholders, residents and their visitors and
    (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease.

    6.2. 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, or that
    7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit.

    7.3. 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 this same 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 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.


    Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clear parking terms

    8. 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 penalty sum imposed for any breach of parking terms were prominent, and stated in simple clear large lettering - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

    8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to the primary defence above, inadequate.

    8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a parking space value to be protected overnight, after the daytime pay and display hours. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage and can show no legitimate interest in fining leasehold residents. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.


    No locus - the Claimant is not the freeholder nor authorised by the freeholder

    9. 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.

    10. The Claimant appears to rely upon a purported contract with a company called 'Rosehill Triangle (2003) Management Company Ltd'. This is not the freeholder and neither is it the Managing Agent. Companies house shows that Rosehill Triangle (2003) Management Company Ltd is what appears to be a 'front' - a company on paper but with no registrable person listed as a Director of the company. This paper company cannot override the rights of residents and are not a named party in the lease.


    Added costs have not been incurred - attempt at double recovery

    11. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported 'indemnity' costs which the Defendant submits have never actually been incurred. It is believed that Gladstones Solicitors offer their services to IPC members on free (or nominal) terms, since the IPC and Gladstones shared Directorships, causing an alarming conflict of interests exposed in the Parliamentary debate in the House of Commons in February.

    12. The added costs are in fact artificially invented figures, which represent a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules and achieve double recovery. In Beavis, only the parking charge itself (£85) was pursued and the 'charge' was scrutinised by the Supreme Court and held to mainly represent a significant sum in profit; being a pre-set, deliberately high deterrent. This was already significantly over and above the very minimal costs of operating an automated ticketing regime and no damages/loss/debt collection costs could have been claimed on top, because none existed.

    13. Similarly, in Somerfield a £75 parking charge for a valuable retail parking space was not a penalty, but a sum mentioned in the harassing letters of double that amount, almost certainly would be.

    14. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.


    signed


    date
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 3rd Jul 18, 5:32 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    Hi

    I'm looking to send the defence by email. I wasreading about the rules in email guidance on justice gov uk website and noticed that it says

    the name of the person who has signed the statement of truth is typed underneath the statement:

    Does that mean my printed name should be stated as well as signature and date at the bottom? In my draft there are only signature and date. No printed name.

    The guidance also says

    However if you wish HMCTS to serve you by email you must explicitly request this.

    If I request this will I receive DQ etc by email rather than post?

    Thank you
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 3rd Jul 18, 11:07 PM
    • 10,664 Posts
    • 11,049 Thanks
    KeithP
    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'.
    .
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 3rd Jul 18, 11:56 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    Thank you KeithP

    I'm just wondering if the email address might be this one? Or are these the same?
    I found this address in other thread.

    ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

    The thread also says people usually call the court to confirm if they've received the defence?

    Or will they update MCOL as I did acknowledgement of service on the website.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 4th Jul 18, 12:13 AM
    • 10,664 Posts
    • 11,049 Thanks
    KeithP
    masatoi, searching the forum is not difficult.

    I just used ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk as a search argument and found the answer to your question in a few seconds.

    You too could've found this post quicker than asking the question:

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=74451367&postcount=17
    .
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 4th Jul 18, 1:42 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    Thank you KeithP, yes you are absolutely right!
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 4th Jul 18, 4:33 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    Little update

    I emailed my defence to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk today and almost immediately they updated MCOL.

    My claim history is as below

    Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 16/06/2018 at 21:04:37
    Your acknowledgment of service was received on 18/06/2018 at 01:06:07
    Your defence was received on 04/07/2018
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jul 18, 5:45 PM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good. Step by step, and this was a big one.

    Now relax and enjoy the sun, and be ready for DQ stage and WS stage, as shown in the NEWBIES thread in detail.
    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
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 9th Jul 18, 10:24 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    Today I received a letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms that they have received my defence which was also confirmed on MCOL.

    The letter says:
    ----------
    I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor). the claimant may contact you direct to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.

    Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay.
    -------------

    This process is already mentioned in the newbies thread but this is what the letter actually says.

    I leave this here for future reference.
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 12th Jul 18, 12:52 AM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    Hi

    I now received a Letter before claim from Gladstones for another ticket they issued to me in 2016.

    This was issued when I parked my car without a permit at my own parking space.
    I received sevral letters for this but I didn't respond at all.

    I have 2 questions

    1) Should I use Danielle San's template #290?

    2) The letter says I need to create an account on their website to reply to them.
    Should I do that or post a physical letter?

    Your advice would be appreciated.
    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 18, 1:00 AM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Is this PCN issued at the same location as the court claim, same car? If so, search the forum for res judicata.
    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
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 15th Jul 18, 6:51 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    Thanks Coupon-mad

    I haven't had a recision on my current case and I must respond to the letter before claim accoding to newbieas. As you know I already sent my diffence.

    How is res judicata related to my case? I read some posts but the cases already had a decision before they received letter before claim.

    By the way this ticket was issues at the same location but for different cars.

    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jul 18, 8:49 PM
    • 63,875 Posts
    • 76,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    How is res judicata related to my case?
    Google it.
    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
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 16th Jul 18, 5:28 AM
    • 3,769 Posts
    • 6,183 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    How is res judicata related to my case? I read some posts but the cases already had a decision before they received letter before claim.
    RJ applies to the same parties. If it is the same site and the same facts then it will be persuasive but you would need a transcript and be able to show how it is persuasive. Don't think there will be one but check with those posters.
    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
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 17th Jul 18, 11:43 AM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    I'm struggling now. I understand even if they send another court claim form I can ask the court to strike out but I can't figure out how to respond to LBC using res judicata.

    I understand I should respond to LBC so I will probably just use the template in #2 and move on to preparation for DQ for the ongoing case. As I will have to do this before I go on a holiday.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 17th Jul 18, 12:50 PM
    • 3,921 Posts
    • 4,720 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    If the parties are different then RS does NOT STRICTLY APPLY

    You were told this.
    What you can say iss that for THIS part it was already decided that X has priority and their claim has no merit, it cannot succeed.
    • masatoi
    • By masatoi 18th Jul 18, 5:20 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    masatoi
    Update

    As for LBC
    I emailed the template in newbies #2 to enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk
    I didn't include RJ in my mail but I will ask the court to strike out based on RJ in case Gladstone sends me another claim form.

    As for Court claim
    I filled out DQ n180 by following bargepoles post.
    I may have to send it before the court sends me a form because I'll be away.

    I have a question.
    In bargepoles post it says

    Note: Gladstones are currently including a 'request for special directions' asking the Court to hear the case on the papers only, without an oral hearing. You should oppose this, and include the following text in D1: !!!8220;The Defendant opposes the Claimant!!!8217;s request for special directions, and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the defendant!!!8217;s home court, pursuant to CPR 26.2A(3)!!!8221;.
    Should I include this in my DQ even I don't know if they request papers only?

    Thanks
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

3,426Posts Today

5,517Users online

Martin's Twitter