UKCPM / Gladstones Court Claim

Here is my draft defence, based on others found on this forum and elsewhere:

1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXXXXXXX, is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed, and any debt is denied in its entirety.
3) The particulars of claim state that the defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a selection of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Furthermore, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
4) The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained, and no evidence has been supplied by the claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for the keeper to name a driver. It is reiterated that:
a. The Claimant did not identify the driver
b. The Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
5) 4. Due to the lack of information in the particulars, the legal basis for the claim is unclear, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6) The Claimant is to provide proof that they have sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
7) The Particulars are not clear, and the claimant has not provided enough information to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract, which it is alleged was broken, have not been provided.
1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
8) On the 20th September 2016 a private parking charge claim by Gladstone’s was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’ On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.
9) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol:
a. No information has been provided regarding the list of the documents that will be relied upon in court
b. It has not been stated that the claim amount may rise
c. The defendants full name was not used
d. No information has been provided regarding any funding arrangement (within the meaning of rule 43.2(1)(k) of the CPR) that has been entered into by the claimant.
e. No clear basis for the reason for the claim was provided
10) It is suggested by the defendant that parking companies using the small claims process as a form of aggressive debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to sustenance.
11) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The appropriate Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.
12) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers fabricated out of nothing and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court.
13) It is requested by the defendant that the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstone’s' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.
14) Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date


As my address has changed during this period, how would you suggest that I go about notifying those relevant about this change of adresss?

Thanks for all your help.

Anyone able to help?