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
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 12th Sep 18, 11:50 PM
    • 79Posts
    • 29Thanks
    LewiiiD
    UKCPM - Take Two
    • #1
    • 12th Sep 18, 11:50 PM
    UKCPM - Take Two 12th Sep 18 at 11:50 PM
    Hi everyone,

    Some of you may have followed my previous case against UK CPM and Gladstones back towards the end of last year with it concluding in February. Well I'm back again with the same issue basically.


    This time around they are chasing me for parking outside of a marked bay in the same residential estate. This PCN dates back to May 2017.

    I have acknowledged MCOL, but unfortunately work has been hectic and I've only now managed to draft my defense. It needs to be submitted in a couple of days, could someone have a once over........

    I did also ask for the evidence to be sent to me as per the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and they failed to get back to me in 30 days.

    However yesterday afternoon I received a rather lengthy email from Gladstones with various cases quoted stating that I still owed the debt...blah blah blah. Interestingly though towards the end of the email they stated: It has been noted that legal proceedings have been issued prematurely and as such, we are willing to offer you the chance to pay a reduced amount of £160

    Has anyone seen this before? And is this something worthwhile adding into the defense?



    Please see drafted defense below: Comments greatly appreciated.



    Introduction


    1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

    2. This is my statement of truth and my defence.
    3. 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 as an unrepresented litigant-in-person I seek the Court’s permission to amend and supplement this defence as may be required upon disclosure of the claimant’s case.
    4. 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.
    5. The residential area in question has particularly poor lighting at night when the car was parked. The terms and conditions of parking have no lighting and were unreadable. It was not made clear that there was any restriction regarding parking outside of marked bays and a valid permit was on display,

    6. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle WV02 ATK when it was parked at Pembroke Park, Crawley. The PCN stated the contravention as “No Parking Outside Of A Marked Bay”.


    Rebuttal of Claim

    7. It is denied that:

    a. A contract was formed
    b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
    c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
    d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
    e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012.
    f. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.
    g. That the Defendant is liable for the purported debt.


    8. It is further denied that the Defendant owes any debt to the claimant or that any debt is in fact owed or that any debt exists or could ever exist or has ever existed. That in any event the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules and that their claim is both unfounded and vexatious.

    9. The Defendant did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    10. The claimant is put to the strictest proof of their assertions.



    My Defence

    11. My defence will reply principally upon the following points:
    12. The signage on this site was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.
    a. The signage on and around the site in question was unclear and not prominent and did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the amount demanded by the Claimant, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
    b. Further, Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ can be seen as applicable in this case, as the parking charge notice of £100 (being ‘out of all proportion’ with expectations of drivers in this car park and thus being an onerous term) should have been effectively: “In red letters with a red hand pointing to it” i.e. Very clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering. Lord Denning stated this in the case of Spurling vs Bradshaw Ltd; “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”.
    c. The claimant is put to strict proof that the signage on the date in question clearly sets out the onerous terms of a parking charge notice, to sufficiently draw the attention of a visitor, as set out in the leading judgement of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
    d. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

    13. Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a test of good faith.
    Para 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.”

    14. 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 are used to form contracts. It says:

    2.1 Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. 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. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.

    2.2 Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code

    15. The defendant refutes that there were clear and visible signs, with Terms that formed the basis of a contact and which met the specifications above


    16. Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators:

    1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

    a. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.
    b. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    c. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    d. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    17. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that his claim is founded in trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a residential car park setting any damages in trespass can only be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis
    Only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves.
    18. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. 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 Freedom Act 2012 (“POFA”). The claimant is put to strict proof.
    19. If the Claimant seeks to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provisions. 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 strict limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
    20. The case of Elliot v Loake (1982) is often cited by UK Car Park Management Ltd, however it is a criminal case with forensic evidence, whereby the keeper of the vehicle was also proved to be the driver at the time of an offence and thus has no basis upon this case or contract law. This is supported by the ruling of the Judge in Excel v M. X (Manchester) C8DP5C7T, who dismissed Elliot v Loake as it is a criminal case that doesn’t bear any weight in the small claims court.
    21. Similarly CPS vs AJH Films (2015) is another case heavily relied upon by UK Car Park Management. However time and time again this gets thrown out of court. As recently as 22nd June 2017, DJ McKay dismissed Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Mrs. L. Evans (Cardiff) C8DP79CC as the judge fully agreed with Mrs L. Evans witness statement which correctly pointed out that this case involved employer/employee liability. As this claim was not a comparable situation, it also had no relevance to Excel’s case.
    22. The Defendant denies that they would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council, which is set at £50 or £25 if paid within 14 days.
    23. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £241.32. The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.
    a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.
    b. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

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

    25. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

    26. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    27. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion.

    28. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.



    This statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Page 2
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 14th Sep 18, 8:53 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Okay, I’ll amend and send it off this evening. Thanks for your help again Coupon ��
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 14th Sep 18, 9:33 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Just double checking email address to send Defence into:



    I had ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk from the previous case but ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk has been quoted in another post?



    Thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Sep 18, 9:34 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,324 Thanks
    KeithP
    Just double checking email address to send Defence into:



    I had ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk from the previous case but ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk has been quoted in previous posts?



    Thanks
    Originally posted by LewiiiD
    Either of those will work.

    The 'justice' one is newer.
    .
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 14th Sep 18, 9:42 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Either of those will work.

    The 'justice' one is newer.
    Originally posted by KeithP

    Thank you! All sent.
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 6th Oct 18, 10:33 AM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Quick update. Received a Directions Questionnaire (form N180) from Gladstones but not directly from the courts.

    Is it best to download one and send it in or wait for the one from Northampton?

    Thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Oct 18, 11:45 AM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,324 Thanks
    KeithP
    Quick update. Received a Directions Questionnaire (form N180) from Gladstones but not directly from the courts.

    Is it best to download one and send it in or wait for the one from Northampton?

    Thanks
    Originally posted by LewiiiD
    Please re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread where you will find guidance on exactly how to deal with that situation.
    .
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 6th Oct 18, 12:10 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Thanks KeithP.

    I’ve read Newbies thread more than a few times.

    What I’m really asking is should I contact the business centre to find out where the form is from the courts/download and fill it out or just wait.....

    Gladstones has sent theirs on the 1st which I received on the 4th. Just surprised I haven’t received the one from the courts yet. Don’t want to miss deadlines.

    Thanks
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 6th Oct 18, 12:16 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Just checked MCOL - looks like DQ has been sent to me on the 5th. I'll wait to receive papers from court.
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 14th Oct 18, 7:15 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Evening everyone. Quick one, is it best to post the DQ back to court and Gladstones or can I email? Thanks
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Oct 18, 7:17 PM
    • 14,345 Posts
    • 16,324 Thanks
    KeithP
    Send the DQ to the CCBC using the same email address that you used for your Defence.
    Send it in the same way, i.e. as a signed pdf attachment.

    Don't forget to send a copy to the Claimant - address on the Claim Form.


    Has your Member of Parliament shown any interest?
    Last edited by KeithP; 14-10-2018 at 7:23 PM.
    .
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 14th Nov 18, 9:10 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Quick update - it’s going to court on the 7th Feb 19.

    No response from MP’s. Does anyone have a more detailed/specific letter that seems to work?

    Thanks again
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 15th Jan 19, 1:47 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Good afternoon.

    Just received Claimants WS this morning, looks like it’s still going through to court:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/2r4ypzbleczjtcn/Bundle%20the%20approved%2C%20signed%20statement%20 with%20the%20exhibits.pdf?dl=0&m=

    Is anyone able to have a quick look over. Seems pretty generic once again. Need to make a start on my WS / SA etc as they need to be submitted in a week or so.

    I’ll draft up some bits and submitted ASAP.

    Thanks again!
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 18th Jan 19, 5:48 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Good evening. This is my draft WS if someone is able take a look. Claimants is attached via the dropbox in my previous post.

    WS:

    1. I am the Defendant in this matter. I am an unrepresented consumer who has limited experience attending the county courts. In this statement I will refer to the documents contained in Witness Statement Evidence as ‘Exhibits’ to support my account, by page number, and Claimant’s Accredited Trade Organisation (ATA) (International Parking Community) Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice, by section numbers.


    2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.


    3. The vehicle was parked down a side road within a residential estate. There are no road markings along this road that would suggest that the vehicle would have been parked illegally. At the time of parking the Visitor Space’s allocated to the site were full. A Visitor Permit was displayed.


    4. There was no signage on entering the residential car park (except the statement “Resident’s Parking Only”)(Exhibit 1, page 8) and there was no illuminated signage visible at night. (Exhibit 2, page 9)


    5. The first knowledge of any parking infringement was from the first letter I received from UK CPM dated 15/05/17 – this was a Formal Demand demanding a payment of £100 for an alleged “No Parking Outside of A Marked Bay”. This figure rising to £149 if not paid within 28 days. One very poor quality photo was attached showing the vehicle in question. No reference to how the alleged charge had been calculated was included.
    No PCN was ever received. This goes against POFA Schedule 4 9(2)(f) (Exhibit 3, page 10) as the keeper must be warned about the period 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.


    6. The first letter received from Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) dated 25/07/17 – this demanded a payment of £160, with no reference as to how the alleged debt had arisen or how the charge had been calculated. There was also inclusion of the text “a parking operator, like our client, took a motorist to court for a parking charge – and won. The Supreme Court ruled that the parking charge was lawful” with no reference to the case name or number. (Exhibit 4, page 11)


    7. My own research has found it likely the Supreme Court case was in reference to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (UKSC67 2015) (Exhibit 5, page 12) – which has since been found inapplicable to Residential Parking (Jopson v Homeguard B9GF0A9E 2016) (Exhibit 6, page 12).


    8. I received a second letter from DRP dated 09/08/17 titled “Notice of Intended Court Action – Unpaid Parking Charge £160”. There was no reference as to how the alleged debt had arisen or how the charge had been calculated. This letter included the text “Supreme Court ruling in November 2015, where the court ruled that the parking charge was lawful” – with no reference again to court case name or number. (Exhibit 7, page 13)


    9. I received a third letter from DRP dated 24/08/17 headed “Final chance to pay” of £160 to avoid court action”. Once again there was no reference to how the figure had been calculated or indeed what this alleged debt was for. (Exhibit 8, page 14)


    10. By this point I had been told at various points over the previous 4 months that I owed the Claimant £100 & £160 with no explanation throughout as to how these fees had been calculated.


    11. I received one letter from Gladstones Solicitors dated 10/10/17. This letters alleged I owed the Claimant £160, again with no reference as to what the debt was for or how it had been calculated. This letter once again referenced the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis court case and states “the law is now clear”(Exhibit 9, page 15). The law is indeed clear - as Jopson v Homeguard states – the Beavis case is inapplicable to residential car parking (Exhibit 6, page 12).


    12. The letter received from Gladstones dated 10/10/17 had included a telephone number for DRP but none for Gladstones.


    13. I received a second letter from Gladstones dated 21/06/18 titled “Letter Before Claim” – the alleged debt was £160. There was no reference as to how the fee had been calculated. The debt was simply referred to as “Parking charges” with no reference as to how the charges had allegedly arisen. (Exhibit 10, page 16).


    14. At this point I had now been told I allegedly owed the Claimant £100 and £160. There was no explanation as to how these fees were calculated or why they varied.


    15. I received a Claim Form dated 14/08/18 from Northampton County Court with claim number *********. The receipt of this claim form led me to research this matter further.


    16. The Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) of the Claim Form were sparse and lacking in detail (Exhibit 11, page 17). The PoC do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing that specifies what the terms of the alleged contract were, or how they were breached. The Particulars are not “clear and concise” as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything that could be considered a fair exchange of information. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.


    17. The Pre-Action Protocol encourages early disclosure of documents. As no documents were received, the Defendant contacted the claimant via letter dated 29/06/18, requesting information relating to the alleged claim. (Exhibit 12, page 18,19,20)


    18. As per the Pre-Action Protocol the creditor should not issue court proceedings until 30 days after the date on which the creditor provides the documents requested by the debtor.


    19. The request for information was finally received via email dated 11/11/18. Within this email it was admitted that they had failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol and made the following statement: “It has been noted that legal proceedings have been issued prematurely”. (Exhibit 13, page 21,22)


    20. Taking into account the above admission, the defendant again invites the court to strike the matter out of its own motion.


    21. I found out that UK CPM were members of the International Parking Community (IPC) – there is no reference to IPC membership on their signage. (Exhibit 14, page 23,24)


    22. The sign displays the British Parking Association’s (“BPA”) Approved Operator Scheme (“AOS”) roundel logo – however upon researching this online it was found that the Claimant is not a member of the BPA’s AOS. Upon contacting the BPA it was found the Claimant ceased to be a BPA AOS member in December 2015 and were given a three-month period to remove the AOS logo from their signage. (Exhibit 15, page 25)


    23. The claimant suggests that the signs have been audited by the IPC, yet they still refer to the BPA, even though UK CPM joined the IPC in 2015. The signs still advertise a 0845 number, which was banned back in 2014. This would suggest that the signs haven’t been audited or approved by the IPC and they fail to comply with the IPC Code of Practice set out in Part E Schedule 1.


    24. Having arrived late at night, I had not studied the Claimant’s signs as they were not visible at the point of parking.


    25. It is clearly incumbent on the Claimant, if it accuses drivers of parking offences, to install and maintain clear signage informing drivers that they operate in the residential car park, and about what terms apply to the parking. There was no such signage at the entrance of the car park operated by the Claimant (This lack of signage at the entrance goes against the terms of the Code of Practice of the Claimant’s Accredited Trade Organisation (ATA), Part E Schedule 1 which states as follows:
    Entrance Signs should:
a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within your company if registered).
    I should emphasise that compliance with the Code is a compulsory condition of the Claimant’s membership of its ATA (and without membership the Claimant would not be allowed to request keeper details from the DVLA which allow it to pursue private parking charges). Compliance has also been held by the Supreme Court to be compulsory if a private parking company like the Claimant wishes to recover what is effectively a penalty charge (rather than a lower sum designed to reflect its actual loss) (case of ParkingEye v Beavis, paragraphs 96 and 111).


    26. In addition to the lack of entrance signage, the signs within the area, operated by
the Claimant were small and not easy to read from a car (another breach of the Code
of Practice). I refer to the photographs in Exhibit 16, page 26. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee (of which the Claimant is a
member), clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be
easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation
to the sign". The signage is not as per the code.


    27. The signage is incapable of forming, as claimed, a contract with drivers. (unlike other signs held as capable of doing so – see for example the sign in the ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley case, a copy of which is found at Exhibit 17, page 27).


    29. I was aware that I had the right to park in the Resident’s car park as a Visitor – The only condition of parking understood by the tenant and myself was that a permit must be displayed which it was.If no visitor spaces are available, where is one designated to park?


    30. I had not entered into any contract with the Claimant and had no prior contact with them, neither had I any awareness as to their “conditions”.


    31. I discounted the Claimant - based upon the fraudulent display of membership to a professional body they are not a part of - as a “cowboy” organisation.


    32. To that regard I had no contact with the parking company UK CPM, DRP or Gladstones Solicitors prior to receiving the Claim Form.


    33. A parliamentary debate from 2/2/18 looked at the issues surrounding private parking companies and their ‘out of control’ nature picking on residents and authorised visitors in their own homes. The debate can be found at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02a.1149.0&p=11026
    It is exactly the sort of rogue, predatory practice exposed by every MP in the House, speech after speech exposing the national pariah of PPC’s, agreeing that the industry is an ‘absolute disgrace to this Country’ with none in dissent. These are some of the comments made by the MPs concerning the unregulated parking industry, that no court should be supporting:
    ''Cowboy companies, signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued, bloodsuckers, absolute disgrace, rogue operators, unfair charges and notices, wilfully misleading, signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead, unreasonable, designed to trap innocent drivers, a curse, harassing, operating in a disgusting way, appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing, loathed, outrageous scam, dodgy practice, outrageous abuse, unscrupulous practices, and ''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 it, and I wholeheartedly support the Bill.'' (Exhibit 18, page 28, 29)


    34. The Defendant is at a serious disadvantage in this case as is an inexperienced litigant in person whereas the Claimant is a well funded, serial litigant.


    35. The Claimant has issued vague and incoherent PoC such as the Defendant does not have enough information to efficiently defend this claim (Exhibit 11, page 17), I therefore reserve my position to add further points to my defence once I have seen the Claimant’s court bundle containing their evidence and witness statement.


    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


    Signed: Dated: Defendant
    Last edited by LewiiiD; 20-01-2019 at 5:33 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jan 19, 12:05 AM
    • 70,392 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bumping this for the early morning Sunday posters to look at!
    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
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 20th Jan 19, 8:57 AM
    • 4,621 Posts
    • 3,998 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    I can only see two things (IANAL) and they are in your point 20 you say: -
    20. Taking into account the above admission, the defendant again invites the court to strike the matter out of its own motion.
    But, this is the first time in your WS that you have asked the court to strike it out.

    Not sure that the bold text in point 29 should be there as a judge might turn round and say (as I saw in a lost case yesterday) "you could turn around and leave"
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 20th Jan 19, 2:17 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    Not sure that the bold text in point 29 should be there as a judge might turn round and say (as I saw in a lost case yesterday) "you could turn around and leave"
    I see your point there. I will remove this sentence.

    Regarding the notion to strike out due to their failure to comply with the pre action protocol, it was mentioned in my defence. I shall amend the statement accordingly though.

    Thanks again everyone. Will be aiming to send WS tomorrow morning.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 20th Jan 19, 2:43 PM
    • 39,369 Posts
    • 87,851 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    5. … any "alleged" parking infringement

    15. Redact the claim number!

    19. The request for requested information

    21. Perhaps you could add something like, No reference to the IPC Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) which is a requirement of the IPC CoP in order to obtain keeper details from the DVLA.


    Do you have access to the tenant's lease/AST to back up comments about visitor parking requirements. Wording or lack of wording helps.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 20-01-2019 at 2:55 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 20th Jan 19, 5:35 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    5. … any "alleged" parking infringement

    15. Redact the claim number!

    19. The request for requested information

    21. Perhaps you could add something like, No reference to the IPC Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) which is a requirement of the IPC CoP in order to obtain keeper details from the DVLA.

    All of the above has been adjusted. Thanks again.




    Do you have access to the tenant's lease/AST to back up comments about visitor parking requirements. Wording or lack of wording helps.

    Regarding the above, we are struggling to find the AST for the property we were in at the time. As you can appreciate this was a couple of years ago now, and we no longer have any documentation which is highly frustrating!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jan 19, 5:38 PM
    • 70,392 Posts
    • 82,985 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The lessee can send a SAR to the letting agent for a copy, under GDPR, as it was a document that held their personal data and they signed it, so it must be available.
    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
    • LewiiiD
    • By LewiiiD 20th Jan 19, 6:00 PM
    • 79 Posts
    • 29 Thanks
    LewiiiD
    The lessee can send a SAR to the letting agent for a copy, under GDPR, as it was a document that held their personal data and they signed it, so it must be available.
    Not sure I will have enough time now to include this is in my WS. But I will go through the process. Could I include at a later date?
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

52Posts Today

2,091Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin