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
    • CBoogie
    • By CBoogie 6th Nov 18, 4:31 PM
    • 51Posts
    • 24Thanks
    CBoogie
    Gladstone Solicitors/ Civil Enforcement LTD - CCJs at old address
    • #1
    • 6th Nov 18, 4:31 PM
    Gladstone Solicitors/ Civil Enforcement LTD - CCJs at old address 6th Nov 18 at 4:31 PM
    I've just checked my credit file and have seen that Gladstone Solicitors has recently registered a CCJ at a previous address. I have not lived there for nearly 3 years. I did however receive in the post a two letter before claim. One addressed to the previous address and one to my current address but they were stapled and sent as one letter to my current address. I responded to Gladstone by letter (and got proof of postage) as there was no email address available and the claim ref no. was not recognised when entered into their website. This was in July, and did not hear anything since. So I am shocked now to see that they could do this? I've still got the two letters they sent me, but prior to this did not receive anything in the post regarding this fine. What can I do to remove the CCJ?

    The same thing happened a year prior with Civil Enforcement Ltd, but again have been confused as to what to do as all documents were sent to a previous address. I changed my address, almost immediately with DVLA when I moved house in 2016, so how can these organisations still send court documents to my previous address when my most recent one is available. Both companies have been impossible to get hold of/ ignore any correspondence. These effect my credit massively, and especially being u25 I really do not want this impacting my life for the next 6 years.

    Thanks in advance.
Page 5
    • CBoogie
    • By CBoogie 14th Jan 20, 6:05 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    CBoogie
    Number #7 date was wrong both meant to read as 2017. The WS wasn't signed physically they have just signed their name electronically eg. P.Orch.

    I will amend this, however I believe I'm at defence stage because Ive submitted my witness statement at set aside stage? So I think this is now being defended at the final hearing.

    Cant get pictures of the time its in a covered car park so no signage would be available anyway. Will send me revised copy in a few....
    • henrik777
    • By henrik777 14th Jan 20, 7:06 PM
    • 2,344 Posts
    • 28,189 Thanks
    henrik777
    A witness statement for a set aside is of very limited use to you at a hearing of the actual case. You'll need one for the case.
    • CBoogie
    • By CBoogie 14th Jan 20, 9:31 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    CBoogie
    Ok, do I need to submit a WS, Defence AND Skeleton Argument along with evidence? Im really trying my best to understand all of this but I'm really really confused
    • CBoogie
    • By CBoogie 14th Jan 20, 10:45 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    CBoogie
    so I've just changed my defence to my WS, and ill submit a skeleton argument which is just a more heated out version of the WS.


    WITNESS STATEMENT:

    I am XXXXXX and am the defendant in the matter.

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are, The Defendant was the registered keeper of this vehicle, registration XXXX, however, as this event happened over 3 years ago and the claim was unknown at the time because it was not properly served, the Defendant cannot recall who may have been driving.

    (a) Nor can the Defendant respond regarding the signage that may or may not have been in place at the time, due to lack of knowledge of the event and because the signs are no longer there now, and it is concluded that the Claimant's contract must have been ended by the landowner. The Defendant has learned from research that this claim is likely to be part of a series of 'revenge claims' routinely made by this Claimant, to eke out the last monies from a site where the Claimant was (in all reported cases) removed due to consumer complaints to the landowner. If the Defendant is wrong with this understanding, the Claimant is put to strict proof.

    (b) At the time, it is averred that this Claimant's Notice to Keeper documents did not comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9, so a registered keeper could not be held liable by this Claimant, as a matter of fact and law.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu 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. Further, 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. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, 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.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must pay within 10 minutes of arrival, giving no definition, nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

    6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. The exhibits from SW3 do not give clear indication of whether those signages were in said car park, they are undated so it is unclear if those signs were in place at the time of the alleged contravention.

    7. The Claimant, failed on numerous occasions to correctly send correspondence to The Defendants correct address despite the change of address though DVLA on or around the 19/09/2016. This is a vexatious attempt at filing for a judgement without The Defence being able to adequately defend the claim by filing a claim on the 12/06/2017 nearly a year after registered keeper details had been changed with DVLA, contrary to The Protection of Freedom Act, Schedule 4(2). See Exhibit CE1 for DVLA Keeper information.

    8. I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:

    (a) Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.

    (b) No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.


    COSTS ON THE CLAIM - DISPROPORTIONATE AND DISINGENUOUS
    9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has 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. However, the Claimants are no longer operating for the carpark as land management and therefor cannot enforce this sum.

    10. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

    (a) Only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
    (b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

    11. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

    12. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

    13. It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

    14. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

    15. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

    16. Many informed Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

    (a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

    (b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

    17. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgment for these three example cases stated:

    ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

    18. The Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

    19. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

    20. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule
    27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


    21. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £224.50, for which very little calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Which would be an abuse of process, as The Claimant is inflating sums they are not entitled to recover.

    22. The Claimant has been filed with defences, from The Defendant on more than three separate occasions the most recent being on 21/03/2019 for the set aside hearing.

    23. The Defendant is asking that all reserved costs are to be awarded, a total sum of £255, plus additional costs incurred such as loss of pay equivalent to £86.32 per day and travel and parking costs.

    24. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. 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 witness statement are true.

    Name



    Signature



    Date
    • CBoogie
    • By CBoogie 14th Jan 20, 11:35 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    CBoogie
    PREAMBLE

    1. This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated on 24/01/2020.

    2. The Claimant’s legal representative informed that the Claimant’s witness will not attend the hearing, presenting a significant disadvantage for the Defendant. The author of statement will invariably not be there to give evidence. If he doesn't turn up in court the statement is inadmissible evidence as the Defendant can't question him upon its validity.

    3. The witness and the accompanying witness statement is not credible. It contains invalid, false and vexatious statement which can be shown in this skeleton argument. Moreover, it displays a laissez-faire attitude towards submitting a truthful, factual witness statement.

    4. The Defendant will highlight to the Court that the claim is not only fundamentally misconceive and flawed, but that the claimant behaved unreasonably.

    5. The witness statement by Scott Wilson is contradictory, confusing and particularly troublesome as detailed below.

    THE ISSUES

    6. The Defendant has identified the following areas of dispute:

    (a) The identity of the driver

    (b) The presumption of the driver

    (c) The burden of proof

    (d) No signage so no contract

    (e) Keeper Liability

    (f) No locus standi

    (g) Conduct

    SUBMISSIONS

    7. The Defendant believes that they were not the driver at the material time of the PCN. As this PCN occurred over three years ago, it will be difficult to ascertain who the driver was for them to defend this case.

    8. The Defendant believes that the bright coloured letters submitted under The Claimants defence pack are, alarmist letters could have been seen as a scam or spam, and recognised at the material time that they were not from an authority such as council or the police. They have no information pertaining to who the letter is from. The Claimant referenced nothing in relation to holding the Defendant liable under statute.

    9. It is submitted that the Defendant did not appeal the PCN and was under no obligation to do so as the keeper, as the letter were sent to a previous address despite the change of address was submitted to the DVLA within 6 weeks of moving address. The Defendant correctly was completely unaware of this issue until the subsequent County Court Judgement.

    10. It is submitted that it is impossible for the Defendant to speculate whether the signs were present at the material time as they were not the driver.

    11. The Defendant submits that there are pictures showing the vehicle bearing the same mark to which they are the registered keeper, but cannot adduce any further information.

    12. The Defendant submits that it would not be in the interest of Court time to rebuff each and every individual accusation by the Claimant that the Defendant was the driver.

    GENERAL ARGUMENTS

    13. As detailed in the Claimant’s witness statement, the primary argument for issuing the claim against the Defendant is predominantly based on a crucial but rebutted piece of information; the Defendant was the driver at the material time of the PCN.

    14. Furthermore, the remainder of the points raised in the defence are particularly specific in application. The Defendant will show that the claimant failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, has failed to show evidence of the contract/signage and was granted no locus standi for the land and signs can be evidenced as prohibitive, illegible and confusing.

    15. Any single one of the above is fatal to the Claimant’s case.


    THE IDENTITY OF THE DRIVER

    24. The Defendant refutes the many allegations by the Claimant in their witness statement that they were the driver at the material time either directly or by presumption. The Claimant has no evidence to the contrary and the accusations are merely ‘hear-say’ and conjecture; not a factual reciting of a witness who was present at the material time.

    25. The Claimant’s Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS), International Parking Community code of practice Part C para 1 clearly indicates that the only possible way for the Keeper Liability is Sought by using the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 12) which the Claimant is not relying upon. The Defendant knows that the Claimant has no grounds in pursuing the keeper let alone assuming him as the driver.

    THE PRESUMPTION OF THE DRIVER

    26. It is clear in trite law that where there is no forensic and/or reliable evidence, that a registered keeper of a vehicle cannot be declared the driver at any given point in time. In fact, in some instances they may barely drive the vehicle at all.

    27. The Defendant brings to the Court’s attention POPLA Lead adjudicator and Barrister Mr. Henry Greenslade’s statement regarding keeper liability in the POPLA Annual Report of 2015: “there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

    28. District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds in the case of Excel v Lamoureux [2016] C3DP56Q5 although only persuasive, comes to a comparable conclusion as Mr Greenslade: “The Defendant denies he is the driver and the claimant has absolutely no evidence that he was the driver. There is no assumption in law that the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle. That is trite law…” See Exhibit AM21

    29. District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds then concludes judgement by stating: “The claim against Mr. Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver”.

    30. In the County Court at Liverpool Claim No. C1DP0H0J, Deputy District Judge Gourley dismissed the case between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) and Sarah Quayle (Defendant) due to the Claimant failure to provide evidence that the keeper was in fact the driver. See Exhibit AM22

    31. The Claimant had no entitlement to proceed on the presumption that the keeper is also the driver.

    THE BURDEN OF PROOF

    32. The Defendant has no obligation to prove that they were not the driver. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove that the Defendant was the driver.

    33. Section 172 (2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it clear that the registered keeper of a vehicle is required to furnish the police with the identity of the driver under statute: “(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police…”

    34. There is no such statute requiring the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge on private land. In any event, the Defendant does not know the identity of the driver, only that they themselves were not driving.

    35. Mr Henry Greenslade comments on this particular issue in the 2015 POPLA Annual Report:
    “…a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 [POFA 12] to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time”.

    36. The fact that compliant notices leverages statute, it is pertinent to apply his comments to non-compliant notices.

    37. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the burden of proof for identifying the driver should not lay with the Defendant.

    NO SIGNS, NO CONTRACT.

    38. The Defendant is bemused by the witness’s statement evidence of the signage which they refer to be as the contract which was breached at the material time. The Defendant has the right to believe that there were no sings at the material time because all the Claimant can provide is a template PDF copy of what the sign should look like and a google map with dots showing where the signs should be. This template is shocking and has no basis to be of hard evidence which the Claimant’s witness statement rely on. This makes the Claimant’s witness statement invalid as they have failed to provide evidence which they are relying on to claim a breach of contract by driver.

    39. The claimant provided two pictures of the vehicle which does not prove that the car was parked neither does it prove that or it is in a designated parking bay as referred to Claimant’s witness statement.

    40. The pictures of the car provided by the Claimant does not show that the driver is in the car or not hence the claim of driver parking and exiting the vehicle is invalid.

    41. The information relating to the site provided is usually be second hand knowledge from interpretation of the office files which has no validity to be hard evidence.

    42. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that no contract could have existed with any driver at the material time as the Claimant failed to show hard evidence of signage at the material time.

    KEEPER LIABILITY

    43. Liability can only be transferred lawfully by strictly following Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which was enacted into statute to prevent this very issue and ensure lawful transfer of liability for private land owners. Civil Enforcement LTD chose not to utilise this statute and therefore attempts to transfer liability unlawfully. Mr Henry Greenslade comments on this within the 2015 POPLA Annual Report: “The only presumption that anyone else is liable for such a charge is under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”.

    44. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that Civil Enforcement LTD have failed to make the Defendant liable for any parking charges.

    NO LOCUS STANDI

    45. In this event, the contract agreement that the Claimant has with the Leaseholder cannot be valid as it does not have an end date. The alleged PCN took place over 2 years later following the agreement and the Claimant has failed to show evidence that the agreement was valid at the material time.

    46. The Defendant therefore legitimately brings into question as to where the Claimant submits the vehicle was parked, the validity the original particulars of claim and/or the authority of the disclosed contract agreement.

    47. The Defendant believes the Claimant had no interest in the land, no legal standing to enter into a contract or to litigate in their own name on behalf of the lawful occupier.

    CONDUCT

    48. The Defendant’s conduct and defence was entirely with merit.

    49. Due to the ‘robot-issued’ nature of the claim particulars, the Defendant was unnecessarily disadvantaged in regards to the pertinent facts and information of the claim.

    50. The Claimant claims that their IPC AOS code of practice allows include additional costs however, the Defendant clearly indicated in their witness statement that this is against POFA 12 and the Consumer Rights Act, 2015 schedule 2. See Exhibit CE4.

    50. The Defendant had no choice but to serve a fully comprehensive and inclusive defence in response to the claim and therefore should be used in determining the facts.

    51. The Defendant’s view is that the witness statement is merely a ‘copy and paste’ exercise by the Claimant by reason that several paragraphs are not related to this case and propagates irrelevant points.

    52. The Claimant seeks to apportion liability to the Defendant for not replying to their letters or identifying the driver and suggests that this conduct caused the Claimant costs.

    53. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the Claimant has been wholly and unarguably unreasonable. It is also argued that the conduct of the Claimant cannot be overlooked and has therefore put forward a statement of costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(g) for consideration by the Court.

    54. The Defendant would like to ask that the case is dismissed with no relief from sanctions and that my full costs are granted on the indemnity basis, including (as well as my ordinary costs for attendance) my hours of time at the Litigant in Person rate (£19 per hour for 8 hours spent in extensive research, reading reams of cut & paste template Civil Enforcement LTD, paperwork and preparing my own documents and evidence) loss of earnings for having to take 2 days from work to defend this claim, as well as travel and parking costs.

    I believe that the statements in this skeleton argument are true.


    Name:

    Signature:

    Date:
    Last edited by CBoogie; 15-01-2020 at 10:56 AM. Reason: had address
    • CBoogie
    • By CBoogie 14th Jan 20, 11:36 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    CBoogie
    thought I'd just remove the part in regards to the signature. Although its not physically signed apparently an electric signature is ok? I've had a few places where this has not been an issue, however I beg to differ, nevertheless its been removed for ease. Please let me know what you think!

    Thanks in advance
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Jan 20, 11:51 PM
    • 19,592 Posts
    • 24,985 Thanks
    KeithP
    Did you mean to leave your full name, full address and the Claim Number in post #85?
    Last edited by KeithP; 15-01-2020 at 1:00 AM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 20, 12:50 AM
    • 80,684 Posts
    • 95,218 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ok, do I need to submit a WS, Defence AND Skeleton Argument along with evidence? Im really trying my best to understand all of this but I'm really really confused
    Originally posted by CBoogie
    The order from the Judge after the set aside should tell you what he ordered you and the Claimant to do, and by when.

    As I said already:
    If you do not know, due to time constraints, file & serve a shorter defence and a longer Witness statement (only one of them needs the stuff about the added £82 or whatever they added) and use the POFA, the Beavis quotes and the CRA 2015 as your exhibits if you can't get signage photos from Google Streetview (by changing the date back, with the little arrow).

    Most people who can't get current photos, do that and use those pics to show lack of signs.
    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
    • CBoogie
    • By CBoogie 15th Jan 20, 4:22 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    CBoogie
    my defence:-

    thank you KeithP I have removed that from the post now.
    • CBoogie
    • By CBoogie 15th Jan 20, 5:11 PM
    • 51 Posts
    • 24 Thanks
    CBoogie
    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx xxx in question at the time of the alleged incident.

    4. 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, when no indication has been offered by The Claimant about the identity of the driver.

    4.1. The claim appears to be based upon damages for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    6. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu 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. Further, 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.


    No standing or landowner authority
    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices under defined parameters and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.


    No legitimate interest or commercial justification

    8. It is the Defendant's case that there can be no legitimate interest or commercial justification in pursuing defendant for a hundredfold penalty, for the ordinary and reasonable conduct explained in this defence.

    8.1. The penalty represents neither a necessary deterrent, nor an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests, and the Beavis case is distinguished.


    Unconscionable sum claimed - double recovery - abuse of process

    9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.

    10. The Claimant is a serial offender on this regard and must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC LocumsUKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.

    10.1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form, where the sparse cut & paste particulars are embarrassing and give rise to no recognisable claim in law.

    11. It is an unfair burden and a complete waste of time for the Defendant to spend hours on their defence against a vexatious litigant who then discontinues. Research shows that this Claimant is regularly observed as being in pursuit of default judgments to use as an aggressive form of debt collection, with no intention of paying for or attending the majority of hearings.

    12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. 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:
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jan 20, 4:23 AM
    • 80,684 Posts
    • 95,218 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove #10, and read the Abuse of Process thread post #14 and add hat wording and the three pieces of evidence I took to Southampton, and get this all printed and served immediately.

    I seem to recall you are late and have no time. But you need to include everything.

    Search the forum for ring binder and costs schedule as you need them too.
    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
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

4,304Posts Today

6,786Users online

Martin's Twitter