PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCS's with Gladstones & Parking and Property Management Ltd, Threads merged
anothergasman
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 16:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



Hi Forum,

First of all, thank you for your time if you are reading this.

In full honesty, I have made a litany of mistakes and I am looking to see if anyone has any ideas. I did a lot of reading, made myself confused and i tried my best.

I have lots of scanned info.

The story-

I got 2 PCNs from Parking and Property Management Ltd (PPM) on 25/1/18 and 28/3/18. These were obtained on private land outside of a merchant I use on a very regular basis. I had been parking in the location for many years and can only presume there were no parking restrictions there before. I was (wrongfully) informed by the manager of the merchants that the tickets were a new occurrence and if I just ignored them, thinking they would go away (ha!).

I got letters from Gladstones (including one from Marstons but this is a bit weird). i.e I have a letter on 10.818 from Gladstones (Letter Before Claim) giving the charge dates as 25/1/18 and 28/3/18 and totalling £320 ( 2 x 160). I then have a letter from Marston on 26/1/18 demanding £627.50 (but...i am not even sure if its related to this case, me or anything else)

21.11.18 - I acknowledged the claim (I did some reading and realised my mistake).

Somewhere in between I registered via some government gateway and logged my defence. I am now no longer able to log in..I read a lot and cobbled together something. I fully realise that what I put together was far from perfect. Also criticism, as long as constructive will be listened too!

3.12.18 - Letter from HM Courts and Tribunals Service

13.12.18 - Letter From Gladstones inc. Directios Questionnaire (not replied)

2.1.18 - Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track (not replied - deadline 21.1.19)

So here I am. It looks like there is some mention of mediation and I have no idea what to do next. I am unable to log into the government gateway/portal where I logged my defence. I don't even know where I can look to online to get any further info about my case. I am not sure if Gladstone relied within 28 days regarding the letter dated 3/12/18.

If anyone has the time to read through all of this, I would be most grateful.

Kindest regards,

Another Gas Man

IMAGES

26.1.18 - Marston 1 of 2

26.1.18 - Marston 2 of 2


10.08.18 - Gladstones - Letter Before Claim

24.09.18 - Gladstones - Letter Before Claim


7.11.18 - Claim Form - County Court Business Centre 1 of 2

7.11.18 - Claim Form - County Court Business Centre 2 of 2


3.12.18 - HM Courts & Tribunals Service


13.12.18 - Gladstones - Cover

13.12.18 - Gladstones - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track) 1 of 3

13.12.18 - Gladstones - Directions questionnaire (Small Claims Track) 2 of 3



I have more images but the system will not let me upload them
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 16:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 14:25
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30,883
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



It's all part of the court process.

You can mediate but if you don't reach an agreement (which you won't) then the matter will go to a hearing.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 16:10
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,561
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



The DQ is used to decide where to hold a hearing

If you don't return it, your defence is struck out and PPM is awarded a default judgment

The mediation question is nothing more than the offer of a procedure to settle out of court
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anothergasman
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 13:18
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



Hello Everyone,

I have some more updates and I am unsure what it all means. I am guessing that they want their day in court. If anyone has any advice, I would sorely appreciate it.

Thanks again in advance,
















5/3/18 - image removed to remove personal info

This post has been edited by anothergasman: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 15:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ollyfrog
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 14:10
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 418
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,530



Well it's obvious what it means if you stop panicking and just read it! Deep breaths!

1) 29th Jan - The court is moving the case to your local court.
2) 8th Feb --HW court is asking a judge to decide who needs to do what and by when
3) 15th Feb - The judge says that 1) PPM have to give you and the court full details by 4th March or they'll throw the case out 2) As long as they do that you have until 18th March to put in a new defence.
4) 21st Feb - Gladstones are doing what the court told them, so now you HAVE TO do what the court told you to do.

Read what they have said, slowly, at least three times. Pick all the holes in it you can. Get drafting your proper defence and post it here for people to comment on (look for Bargepole's defence in the MSE forum Newbie section).

First glance at the sign - IMO it's forbidding i.e. No parking on dyl at any time, then charge £100 for parking on dyl - see what others say (Am I getting the hang of these yet guys? - Still learning!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 14:25
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,971
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



yep prohibiting sign. No offer of parking therefore no contract
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 15:58
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,443
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Amended defence means exactly that

You start with your initiqlly submitted defence, and STRIKE OUT (using the font strikethrough option) anything you DELETE< and anything you ADD is added in red.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anothergasman
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 17:37
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



You guys are awesome.

Thanks and will update asap
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 08:43
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,971
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



For the forbidding signs I found this elswhere. Needs investigation for the references

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anothergasman
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 19:41
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



Hello Gents,

Below is my defence. Please be gentle when ripping me apart over it...

I have looked over it and I think it still is ok.

One part from Gladstone letter regarding the 'Registered Keeper' seems off. It 'assumes' that the registered keeper is the person who committed the offence. Surely the registered keeper cannot be liable for a fine etc if they were not driving. And that I am under no obligation to name the person that was driving?

Anyhow, below is what i submitted and i dont know what to change 2nd time around.

Many thanks for your time!







1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol, leaving the Defendant in a position where he cannot understand the Claim, and cannot therefore properly defend it. (a) The first the Defendant heard from the Claimant was a "Letter Before Claim" dated 24.08.18 (b) The Claimant then sent another Letter Before Claim dated 10.09.18. The letters do not comply with the Practice Direction — Pre-Action Conduct. Other than demanding payment of a charge. The letter failed to explain what the claim was, how it had arisen, how the sums allegedly due had been calculated, nor did it provide supporting evidence (all required by paragraphs 6(a), 6© and 12 of the Practice Direction). © Prior to, and since, the Letter Before Claim at (a) above, the Defendant received no communication from the Claimant or its agents or solicitors requesting payment.

2. The Claimant has also failed to comply with the court rules in issuing its claim. The Claim Form contains particulars which are extremely sparse - they divulge no cause of action nor sufficient detail for the Defendant to understand the claim being brought and to respond appropriately. This is in breach of CPR Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 7E paragraph 5.2. If the claim is based on a contract (which is not clear from the Particulars), then it is also in breach of Practice Direction 16 para 7.3 which requires the contractual terms to be provided with the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical, similarly incoherent claims. The Defendant, therefore, has little idea what the claim is about -how the charge arose, what the terms of any alleged contract were or how they have been breached; whether the claim is for breach of contract or trespass - nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

3. The Claimant has never sent a Notice to Keeper to the Defendant. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict 'keeper liability' provisions of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If it is claimed that one was served, the Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof thereof.

4. The Defendant does not know whether the claim is for a breach of contract or for a trespass. If it is for a breach of contract (which is not at all clear from the Particulars of Claim) the Defendant denies that any contract was formed because there is an absence of offer, acceptance and consideration, as set out below.

5. The Defendant assumes (but does not know) that if the claim concerns a breach of contract, the Claimant will assert that its signage contains the terms of that contract. The Defendant denies that the signage was capable of making an offer, and did not make any offer, which was capable of being accepted. The Defendant relies on the following:
A. Inadequate site/entrance signage - the wording on the signs did not make any clear offer.
B. In the alternative, to the extent that any offer was made, the signage was displayed in such a way that any terms were not brought to the driver's attention - in breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the IPC compulsory ATA Code of Practice, of which the Claimant is a member, and no contract can have been formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
C. The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or clearly legible;
D. Any contract which may have been formed (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied) is void because its terms are unfair as they were contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time),
E. No terms were agreed by the driver
F. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
G. The sum pursued exceeds £100 and is therefore an unrecoverable penalty.
H. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no contract of which the Defendant can have breached.

6. The Claimant has no legal standing to bring this claim. It is unclear whether the Claimant entered into any contract with the landowner to manage the parking which authorised it to issue and pursue payment of charges at this car park and to do so in its own name. The Defendant's case is that the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in its name which should be in the name of the landowner, and puts it to full proof thereof.

7. If, on the other hand, the claim arises from a trespass (again, which is not at all clear from the Particulars of Claim) then a third party has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

8. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £60 legal costs, per claim, are incurred. The defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any further payment. 9/ The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has: (a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on 7/11/18. (b) The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success under CPR Rule 3.4 using its inherent case management powers under Rule 1.4(2)© and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1. 0/ Because the Particulars of Claim are so sparse it is difficult for the Defendant (a litigant in person) to file a proper and full defence. For the avoidance of doubt, should this matter proceed then the Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of every aspect of its claims. The Defendant must also, given the lack of particularisation of the claims, reserve the right to raise further points in his defence, should the Claimant further particularise its claims (for instance, in any witness evidence).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ollyfrog
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 23:20
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 418
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,530



"One part from Gladstone letter regarding the 'Registered Keeper' seems off. It 'assumes' that the registered keeper is the person who committed the offence."

Actually it reads much worse than that to me. They don't say they "assume" they say "9. Not withstanding the above, the defendant was driving the vehicle" That's a very bold statement to make without evidence. I sounds like the cat has been let out of the bag somewhere. See what the others think.

Your first post gives away the ID of the driver and if they have been reading this forum they could have that evidence. Any contact, appeals, phone calls - who knows? Also, a word of warning, there should never be any untruth in your defence.

Now I still have "L" plates on in this forum (came in with my own problem, got bitten by the bug and I'm still learning every day, hopefully giving back where I can) so please follow Nosferatu's advice over mine and do the strikethrough, write in red as he advised.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 09:25
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,443
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Indeed, if the driver has been identified, then you need to come clean on that. You cannto lie ina defence or in court.

Yes, an amended defence has to be exactly that - it must show the amendments additions and deletions.

How have you gotten this far without understanding POFA does EXAXTLY what you dont understand - that the KEEPER can be liable for the drivers actions! POFA schedule 4, read it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anothergasman
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 15:02
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



QUOTE (Ollyfrog @ Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 23:20) *
"One part from Gladstone letter regarding the 'Registered Keeper' seems off. It 'assumes' that the registered keeper is the person who committed the offence."

Actually it reads much worse than that to me. They don't say they "assume" they say "9. Not withstanding the above, the defendant was driving the vehicle" That's a very bold statement to make without evidence. I sounds like the cat has been let out of the bag somewhere. See what the others think.

Your first post gives away the ID of the driver and if they have been reading this forum they could have that evidence. Any contact, appeals, phone calls - who knows? Also, a word of warning, there should never be any untruth in your defence.

Now I still have "L" plates on in this forum (came in with my own problem, got bitten by the bug and I'm still learning every day, hopefully giving back where I can) so please follow Nosferatu's advice over mine and do the strikethrough, write in red as he advised.


Thanks Ollyfrog, I have removed that image with my personal info. I have not reuploaded it because I don't think it holds anything vital.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anothergasman
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 16:51
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



Hi All,

Thanks again for reading this. I am trying to slog my way through legalese and it is hurting my brain.

From what I have been told, I have to read their letter, try and find any problems and then amend my defense by 18/3/19. I will do that but before, there a few points I could use advice on this 'Particulars of Claim'

Section 1 – Nothing to contest
Section 2 – Please see the new image file of the actual sign outside the location. They are essentially the same but have 3 differences 1) actual sign has no mention of “retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted and b) contact details are different (phone and email) and c) on actual sign, there is an additional video symbol and blurb about data processing. Also, prior to PPM there were no signs but still double yellow lines. I am unsure when the signs went up. I am still trying to read through the 'forbidding nature' of the sign and will add to this later
Section 3 – Registered Keeper. I cannot at any stage remember if I admitted that I was the driver, only the registered keeper. How can I check this? The website where I acknowledged the claim will not let me back in....
Section 4 – I may have received a window ticket for this. I cannot be sure unless they provide photographic proof of this though. Shouldn't this have been supplied to me? Especially because I have already asked for me info in my defense and on 15/2/19 the claimant was order to 'serve upon the defendant detailed particulars of claim' Also by parking I have entered into a contract. This again feels similar to Section 2 and the 'forbidding' nature.
Section 5 – Again, I cannot remember getting any letters during this period. Surely they will have a record of this? Proof of posting from their end? Surely this should have been supplied to me? Especially because I have already asked for me info and on 15/2/19 the claimant was order to 'serve upon the defendant detailed particulars of claim'
Section 6 – see section 4 & 5
Section 7 – Isn't this section 3 again?
Section 8 – Section 3 again. Presume is a very ambiguous word.
Section 9 – Unless proven otherwise (section 8) it is assumed I am the driver (section 9), therefore I am the driver. Who is the burden on the prove I am the driver? If I were driving, then surely I have a legal right not to self incriminate? Or am I going off n a tangent... I just re-read Nosferatu
Section 10 – Might need pointing in the right direction
Section 11 – This scares me. If I loose it looks like I will have the pay their legal fees?

I even checked if the signatory on the letter is a solicitor (she is)

So, am I on the right track here?

Many thanks in advance!









This post has been edited by anothergasman: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 16:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 19:33
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 350
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



What is the nature of that "car "park"? Is it actually a car park, where parking is free, but certain parts of it have double-yellow lines to stop people blocking access etc? Or does the sign refer to a patch of land where everything is yellow lines and there is no possibility to park?

If the latter, then the "forbidding sign" argument holds water; if the former, then it doesn't.

Did the driver park on the DY lines? (And in both cases?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 10:00
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,443
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The only way to know what was sent was to have used a SAR
You shoudl send one now anyway. Get EVEYRTHING from teh PPC they have on you.

There is no proof of posting. None. But you can state that the presumption of service is rebutted, as you will attest you did not receive any letters.

11 - No, read CPR27.14, you are not liable for their fees UNLESS the court decides you have behaved unreasonably.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anothergasman
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 21:31
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 19:33) *
What is the nature of that "car "park"? Is it actually a car park, where parking is free, but certain parts of it have double-yellow lines to stop people blocking access etc? Or does the sign refer to a patch of land where everything is yellow lines and there is no possibility to park?

If the latter, then the "forbidding sign" argument holds water; if the former, then it doesn't.

Did the driver park on the DY lines? (And in both cases?)


Hi Sheffield Dave,

The location of the DYL's were on an entrance road into an industrial estate. The industrial estate is private land. The industrial estate has free parking, a distance away, from the business/shop I was visiting. On side of the road has DYL, the other has off road parking. Both sides of the road have pavements. The business I was visiting has a very limited number of (free) parking spaces but they were full. I did not use the alternative free parking because I had to carry heavy materials (and the business does not have bags or trollies).

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 10:00) *
The only way to know what was sent was to have used a SAR
You shoudl send one now anyway. Get EVEYRTHING from teh PPC they have on you.

There is no proof of posting. None. But you can state that the presumption of service is rebutted, as you will attest you did not receive any letters.

11 - No, read CPR27.14, you are not liable for their fees UNLESS the court decides you have behaved unreasonably.


Hi Nosferatu,

I did not get a SAR. I don't think that even if I had done this in the timely manner you recommended, that I would have got the details back in time, in order or it to make a difference to my amended defence. Do you think I should include this in my amended defence?

Again, thank you for your time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anothergasman
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 23:45
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



Hello everyone,

Thank you for your time. Below is my butchered attempt at an amended defence. Failing any major faults, I intend to submit this by hand tomorrow. Any last minute guideancew would be so appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Another Gas Man

1. This Claimant has not never complied with the[/colour] pre-court protocol, leaving the Defendant in a position where he cannot understand the Claim, and cannot therefore properly defend it. (a) The first the Defendant heard from the Claimant was a "Letter Before Claim" dated 24.08.18 (b) The Claimant then sent another Letter Before Claim dated 10.09.18. The letters do not comply with the Practice Direction — Pre-Action Conduct. Other than demanding payment of a charge. The letter failed to explain what the claim was, how it had arisen, how the sums allegedly due had been calculated, nor did it provide supporting evidence (all required by paragraphs 6(a), 6© and 12 of the Practice Direction). © Prior to, and since, the Letter Before Claim at (a) above, the Defendant received no communication from the Claimant or its agents or solicitors requesting payment.

[color=red]1.1 As per the Courts directions dated 15/2/19, the Claimant has not submitted "detailed particulars of [the] claim". The information and evidence are so lacking that the defendant cannot construct a practical defence. As per the Courts order, we suggest the claim be struck off.


2. The Claimant has also failed to comply with the court rules in issuing its claim. The Claim Form contains particulars which are extremely sparse - they divulge no cause of action nor sufficient detail for the Defendant to understand the claim being brought and to respond appropriately. This is in breach of CPR Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 7E paragraph 5.2. If the claim is based on a contract (which is not clear from the Particulars), then it is also in breach of Practice Direction 16 para 7.3 which requires the contractual terms to be provided with the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical, similarly incoherent claims. The Defendant, therefore, has little idea what the claim is about -how the charge arose, what the terms of any alleged contract were or how they have been breached; whether the claim is for breach of contract or trespass - nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

3. The Claimant has never sent a Notice to Keeper to the Defendant. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold the Defendant liable under the strict 'keeper liability' provisions of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If it is claimed that one was served, the Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof thereof.

3.1 Becuase the private land is an industrial estate, it is implied that there is a right to stop and load/unload. The Defendant believes the case of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E and Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011is relevant here.

4. The Defendant does not know whether the claim is for a breach of contract or for a trespass. If it is for a breach of contract (which is not at all clear from the Particulars of Claim) the Defendant denies that any contract was formed because there is an absence of offer, acceptance and consideration, as set out below.

5. The Defendant assumes (but does not know) that if the claim concerns a breach of contract, the Claimant will assert that its signage contains the terms of that contract. The Defendant denies that the signage was capable of making an offer, and did not make any offer, which was capable of being accepted. The Defendant relies on the following:
A. Inadequate site/entrance signage - the wording on the signs did not make any clear offer. There is no entrance signage to the industrial estate and it is neither plentiful or easily visible. The Defendant believes the case of Link Parking v Mr L C9GF5875 [2016] may be applicable here
B. In the alternative, to the extent that any offer was made, the signage was displayed in such a way that any terms were not brought to the driver's attention - in breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the IPC compulsory ATA Code of Practice, of which the Claimant is a member, and no contract can have been formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
C. The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or clearly legible;
D. Any contract which may have been formed (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied) is void because its terms are unfair as they were contrary to the UTCCRs (as applicable at the time),
E. No terms were agreed by the driver
F. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
G. The sum pursued exceeds £100 and is, therefore, an unrecoverable penalty.
H. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no contract of which the Defendant can have breached.
I. The wording of the signage forbids parking and then there is no offer to park and therefore no contract. The defendant believes that is a 'prohibiting sign' as made clear from several cases such as PCM-UK v Bull et all, B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] and Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]
J. The signage may not comply with information requirements laid down in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014 as per ParkingEye v Beavis [2015].
K. The signage claimed to be installed by the Claimant at the locations in question, as supplied as 'Document 1' on the Particulars of Claim dated 21/2/19 are false. The actual signage installed, at the assumed location, is attached as a copy marked 'Document 2'. The claimant has supplied demonstrably inaccurate information when asked to by the Courts.

6. The Claimant has no legal standing to bring this claim and does not have the authority to operate . It is unclear whether the Claimant entered into any contract with the landowner to manage the parking which authorised it to issue and pursue payment of charges at this car park and to do so in its own name. The Defendant's case is that the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in its name which should be in the name of the landowner, and puts it to full proof thereof.

7. If, on the other hand, the claim arises from a trespass (again, which is not at all clear from the Particulars of Claim) then a third party has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

8. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. The particulars of claim are templates, so it is not credible that £60 legal costs, per claim, are incurred. The defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to any further payment.

9. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has: (a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the Claim Form issued on 7/11/18. (b) The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success under CPR Rule 3.4 using its inherent case management powers under Rule 1.4(2)© and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1. 0/ Because the Particulars of Claim are so sparse it is difficult for the Defendant (a litigant in person) to file a proper and full defence. For the avoidance of doubt, should this matter proceed then the Defendant puts the Claimant to full proof of every aspect of its claims. The Defendant must also, given the lack of particularisation of the claims, reserve the right to raise further points in his defence, should the Claimant further particularise its claims (for instance, in any witness evidence).

10. The Claimant in Section 4 of the Particulars of Claim dated 21/2/19, states that the defendant "was issued with Parking Charge Notices' for the sum set out in the contract". The defendant has no knowledge of these. The defendant would have expected the Claimant to provide proof (including photographic and copies of the originals), as the Court's directions dated 15/2/19. Again, the information and evidence are so lacking that the defendant cannot construct a practical defence. As per the Courts order, we suggest the claim be struck off.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anothergasman
post Wed, 8 May 2019 - 09:35
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



Hi All,

Thank you for your time.

I have had the claim against me go all the way and it has been allocated to the small claims track.

I quote:

"Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed with 7 days of receiving it"

I think it would be best to have my day in court. Hopefully, the Claimant (a PPC) will find it uneconomical and not contest it.

So, 2 questions:

1- do I need a special form to have it set aside
2- a flaw in my plan i.e. I am going to get done for more costs by being in court etc

Many thanks,

AGM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 8 May 2019 - 09:49
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,971
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As this will be in the small claims track then the ability for costs is severely limited. If you lose think about £200. If you win you claim loss of earnings (max £96) and travel and parking from the PPC

So why are you asking for the allocation to the small claims track to be set aside?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anothergasman
post Wed, 8 May 2019 - 09:53
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Member No.: 101,960



I want it set aside because they want to have it without a hearing. i.e. the PPC don't want to have to send a goon out to the court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 17th July 2019 - 11:33
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.