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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 12th Dec 18, 7:56 PM
    • 201Posts
    • 51Thanks
    azz007
    Gladstone County Court Claim
    • #1
    • 12th Dec 18, 7:56 PM
    Gladstone County Court Claim 12th Dec 18 at 7:56 PM
    received the county court claim today 12th, as keeper for 3 parking tickets MINSTER BAYWACH that occurred over a year ago LATE 2017. Linked forum
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5860788&highlight=azz007#1


    Issued 10th Dec, recieved 12th Dec
    i have acknowledged the claim today (12th)so have 28days to build a defence. i need some direction of what to do now as i have completed the AOS.

    do i submit the defence via moneyclaim or send these via email.?

    is there a guidance on a defence, witness statment etc that will need to be done ,basically a step by step process of what will happen now and what i need to do as keeper. The driver wasnt identified in the appeal/popla stage

    Isnt the burden of proof on them

    much appreciated
    Last edited by azz007; 13-12-2018 at 7:41 AM.
Page 4
    • azz007
    • By azz007 12th Mar 19, 9:35 AM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    Well who knows if it is 30 days or not, as you blnaked out the date.
    They have until whatever date youve blanked out to submit the new PoC, and you can then file an AMENDED defence. AMENDED means - start with your FIRST defence, strike through (using word font options) any deletions, any ADDITIONS go in red.

    It is not standard .It means the judge is annoyed at them.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    case has been allocated to MANCHESTER , not given a date yet, i have just recieved new PoC. for my ammended defecne, do i send this only to manchester court? or send a copy to MB or Gladstones too
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Mar 19, 12:10 PM
    • 14,729 Posts
    • 16,918 Thanks
    KeithP
    case has been allocated to MANCHESTER , not given a date yet, i have just recieved new PoC. for my ammended defecne, do i send this only to manchester court? or send a copy to MB or Gladstones too
    Originally posted by azz007
    In post #59 you told us the Order said:
    I can also submit another updated/ defence if this is the case
    Can you tell us exactly what that point said?

    Did it really use the word 'submit'?

    I think the answer you are looking for is in there.
    .
    • azz007
    • By azz007 14th Mar 19, 3:20 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    In post #59 you told us the Order said:

    Can you tell us exactly what that point said?

    Did it really use the word 'submit'?

    I think the answer you are looking for is in there.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    ...........if the claimant complies with this order the Defendant may send to the court and the claimants solicitors a Defence in substitution for the Defence dated XX on Dec 2018 by 4PM on XX May 2019
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 14th Mar 19, 3:39 PM
    • 14,729 Posts
    • 16,918 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...........if the claimant complies with this order the Defendant may send to the court and the claimants solicitors a Defence in substitution for the Defence dated XX on Dec 2018 by 4PM on XX May 2019
    Originally posted by azz007
    Brilliant.

    Looks quite clear to me.

    If the Claimant supplies a POC by the date specified...

    You can write an entirely new Defence, not an amended Defence, if you wish.

    You "send to the court and the claimants solicitors".

    Before some date in May.

    Which bit are you having difficulty with?
    .
    • azz007
    • By azz007 15th Mar 19, 9:20 AM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    got the new PoC,
    Their claims are registered keeper liabilty, relying on POFA.
    And contract was formed to to park on the land,
    cliams for interest
    claims for costs

    They also state , 'Notwithstanding, the defendant was driving the vehicle'

    how can they say this, i have never mentioned who the driver was, in any case. the burden of proof is on them.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Mar 19, 9:47 AM
    • 23,382 Posts
    • 37,255 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Their claims are registered keeper liabilty, relying on POFA.
    I haven't ploughed back over the entire thread, but the important starting point for you on this is - are all their NtKs fully compliant with PoFA?
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • azz007
    • By azz007 26th Mar 19, 10:26 AM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    I haven't ploughed back over the entire thread, but the important starting point for you on this is - are all their NtKs fully compliant with PoFA?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    NTK have some grey areas, as keeper i feel its not relevant land, no period of parking specified. thats about it, and also keeper liabitly.

    the two main points they are lookin at according to the new PoC are;

    POFA, keeper liabitly
    and contract to park

    so do i based the new defence on those 2 points only now? or keep other points which i still feel relevant
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Mar 19, 2:07 PM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,430 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    They also state , 'Notwithstanding, the defendant was driving the vehicle'
    You are going to have to admit or deny that...

    Or, if it's too long ago and an unremarkable event, and the car could have been driven by more than one person, state that there is no way to know which insured driver parked. Thus, it is untrue for the Claimant to assert that the D was driving, as even the D has no idea and there is no evidence.

    so do i based the new defence on those 2 points only now? or keep other points which i still feel relevant
    Don't narrow the issues to two if you feel there are more issues to defend on!

    Show us your new replacement defence draft now.
    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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 26th Mar 19, 2:45 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    new defence
    Show us your new replacement defence draft now.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    points 1-4 are the main arguments, point 6, is this too long? there are too many variation of the site for parking on further investigations

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX on the material dates. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that whilst operating as a contractor on an agency basis, it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment from the defendant by means of litigation. The defendant believes the vehicle was not parked on any relevant land under their control and has acquired Land Registry documents. Therefore no ‘relevant contract’ was formed and under POFA 2012, the registered keeper is not liable.

    3. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. The Claimant have claimed in the amended PoC, ‘Notwithstanding the above, the Defendant was driving the vehicle’. There is no way to know which insured driver parked as this was too long ago. Thus, it is untrue for the Claimant to assert that the Defendant was driving, as even the Defendant has no idea and there is no evidence.
    3a. The Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 PARA 9, states; 2 - The notice to keeper must— (a) Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates. The defendant believes the vehicle was not on “relevant land” and is classed as a public highway area as part of an access road, and no ‘specified period of parking. Therefore, no keeper liability.

    4. 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 £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    5. The Defendant has already successfully won an appeal against the Claimant on a previous occasion for parking charge XXXX issued on XX/XX/2017, which is based on similar grounds. There is no consistency in their appeal process and are acting in an unprofessional and unreasonable manner by pursuing this claim.

    6. The defendant has visited the said car park as a result of this claim. It was noticed that there is no signage at the entrances to the site from the main road and within entering and exiting the car park itself. This is a failure of the BPA code of practice 18.2 and 18.4 not adhering to Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. 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. 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. There was no acceptance of any signs upon entering the car park via the access road as there is none, and mentioned above, therefore, no terms were accepted of contract.
    6a. Furthermore, there are conflicting signs around the site; signs state it is for the use of ‘Banktop Tavern’ and ‘Mecca Bingo’ patrons only, and that such patrons be on the authorised user list.
    6b. The signs does not state how to be on the authorised user list, but does state that customers can use the parking site, so it is a frustration of contract.
    6c. there are signs ‘NO Parking’ that say a maximum of 30 minutes stay, so there is conflict.
    6d. There is also a pay and display unit - £2 for 1 hr parking, £5 for 24hrs respectively.

    6.1. The signs also fail because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an ICO breach and contrary to the BPA Code of Practice 21.1. 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.

    7. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by Gladstones 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.’

    8. The Defendant had made attempts to settle the matter as the registered keeper before court proceedings were commenced by the claimant, and considered alternative dispute resolution as specified under the Pre-Action Protocols 6.1 where it states - If the parties still cannot agree about the existence, enforceability, amount or any other aspect of the debt, they should both take appropriate steps to resolve the dispute without starting court proceedings and, in particular, should consider the use of an appropriate form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

    9. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to a total of £480. The defendant submits that the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further, Gladstone’s Solicitors Limited appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

    10. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. Mr Beavis admitted being the driver and that he overstayed, having seen the prominent signs offering a parking licence set out in clear wording, and thus he had entered into a contract with ParkingEye.

    10.1. Taking the comments of the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal in the earlier hearing in Beavis) into account, the 'parking charge' sum owed in this case can, at most, only be £2(1-hour parking according to the P&D machine) and there was ample opportunity to fairly collect and transparently advertise that sum on site, on the material day.

    11. In view of all the foregoing, the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Mar 19, 2:47 PM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,430 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    By this, do you mean you won at POPLA, or won against a court claim?

    5. The Defendant has already successfully won an appeal against the Claimant on a previous occasion for parking charge XXXX issued on XX/XX/2017, which is based on similar grounds. There is no consistency in their appeal process and are acting in an unprofessional and unreasonable manner by pursuing this claim.
    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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 26th Mar 19, 3:00 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    By this, do you mean you won at POPLA, or won against a court claim?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    first stage of appeal to the PPC. they cancelled the charge, which as keeper i apeealed on the #6C, this so called loading bay, maximium 30 mintues stay.

    the other tickets looks to be under the same circumstances
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Mar 19, 3:01 PM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,430 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to a total of £480.
    They can't have done - this must be about more than one PCN.
    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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 26th Mar 19, 3:03 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    They can't have done - this must be about more than one PCN.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    3 further Parking charges
    3 x £60
    inflated to 3 x £100

    then the additnal charges

    so how would i clear up that point in a concise way? i feel they targeted the vehcile due to its nature and type.
    after thye cancelled 1, thoight not going to cancel the others.
    Last edited by azz007; 26-03-2019 at 3:06 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Mar 19, 3:14 PM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,430 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So this needs to say:

    The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £300 to a total of £480.
    Are you SURE it's only £480 at the bottom right of the claim form? I would expect it to show a fake £60 added to each £100, plus court fees and possibly fake legal costs too, making the claim more like double the £300.
    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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 26th Mar 19, 3:19 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    So this needs to say:


    Are you SURE it's only £480 at the bottom right of the claim form? I would expect it to show a fake £60 added to each £100, plus court fees and possibly fake legal costs too, making the claim more like double the £300.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad

    your right, tickets are now £480 with the addiotnal £60 added included.
    then interests of £20 pusuant to S69.... continuing to judgement at £0.11 per day.

    amount claimed £500+
    court fee £60
    legal rep costs £70

    total £630+
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Mar 19, 3:27 PM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,430 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So the entire point of the template wording is to show double recovery, thus:

    The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £300 to a total of over £630, artificially and with no lawful justification, taking it above the sum needed to engage High Court Enforcement Officers, should a Defendant fail to defend in time. This is a clear abuse of process and the Defendant asks that the court uses its case management powers to strike the claim out for that reason and not allow any relief from sanctions for this highly litigious Claimant, whose solicitor representatives should know better.
    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
    • azz007
    • By azz007 26th Mar 19, 3:29 PM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    So the entire point of the template wording is to show double recovery, thus:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    thanks so much
    • Redx
    • By Redx 26th Mar 19, 3:31 PM
    • 22,461 Posts
    • 28,477 Thanks
    Redx
    each ticket is more likely to be £100 , not £60 , plus the inflated charges

    how many tickets ? 3 or 4 ?

    multiply that number of tickets by £100 and you get the initial default parking charges total

    this figure per ticket should be on the signage and on each and every pcn

    ie:- get the facts correct, its not £100 inflated to £480 or £630+

    its the total charges for all the initial pcn,s added together, plus additional fees and charges


    for info, any initial £60 charge is usually the £100 minus 40% discount for early payment (the so called bribe) - you are letting that reduced figure cloud your judgment and make your maths flawed

    on page 1 of this thread you talk about 3 pcn`s , as you do on your previous thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5860788

    so for each pcn it was £100 reduced to £60 for early payment, so the charge per pcn was £100 and is probably what the signs tell you as well

    3 x £100 = £300 , so how did they get it to £480 ? , simple

    they add £60 onto each pcn for debt collection

    3 x £160 = £480 , which is what they were claiming on the LBC

    so the £60 has been added 3 times, once for each pcn

    this is simple maths , not rocket science

    the rest of their court claim is legal fees , added charges and interest etc

    so its £300 which has been inflated to £480 plus fees and charges and interest taking it to £630+
    Last edited by Redx; 26-03-2019 at 3:50 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • azz007
    • By azz007 17th May 19, 11:51 AM
    • 201 Posts
    • 51 Thanks
    azz007
    Update: Received letter from Manchester County

    GENERAL FORM of Judgement or ORDER

    IT IS ORDERED THAT

    1. Claim is struck out as incoherent and having no prospect of success CPR 3.4
    2 Because this order was made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party making such application must send or deliver the application to the court (together with any appropriate fee) to arrive within 7 days of service of this Order.

    can someone tell me what this exactly means?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th May 19, 12:02 PM
    • 72,078 Posts
    • 84,430 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    LOL, it means you won! No hearing needed, their claim is struck out.

    Unless Gladstones appeal in time, this is dead in the water as the lovely Judges (was it DJ Iyer?) at Manchester have struck the claimant's case out as ''incoherent and having no prospect of success CPR 3.4''.



    ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!
    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

2,550Posts Today

6,225Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Can't believe my luck. Just got this email My name is Manuel Franco. I won $768.4m Lottery Jackpot. I have a don? https://t.co/OSYkS7tu2c

  • It should be a poll. You are implying your view is the only view anyone can hold. Clearly the poll results show tha? https://t.co/ur0ejJ1fjB

  • Today's Twitter Poll: Is milkshaking legitimate political protest or unacceptable thuggery? In recent weeks a few? https://t.co/hjCpu9zqwZ

  • Follow Martin