PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCn ... Appeal IAS... Court Letter
10020132
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 01:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



Hi
I got a Parking charge notice (PCN) on 3rd March 2018 from PCM Management Ltd and I appealed it. I received their response after 28 days in which the rejected my appeal and gave me the option to go to IAS. I appealed to IAS with all the points like no contract was formed, poor signage etc. and told them that I received the response after 28 days which even invalidates my appeal anyway. And they wrote to me saying that they have spoken to PCM and are agreeing to consider my appeal even though its out of time appeal. This was in May 2018

Since then, I never heard anything back from either of them. Now, I received court papers from Gladstone solicitors saying that I need to pay them 261 pounds because I failed to pay earlier.

I tried logging in to my IAS account which I couldn't login saying my password is incorrect even though the password was saved in google chrome. After resetting the password million times, I managed to login and my appeal does not even show up in my appeals. I wrote to IAS about it but they are not replying either

What should I do? PLease help !!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 01:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 12:03
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



EDIT YOUR POSTS, NOW

You have been told twice

If you dont, you will find this MUCH harder. Your choice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 12:08
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 12:01) *
The suggestion has been made to edit your posts and any narratives so that the driver's identity is not revealed. For an example of this, see below.
QUOTE (10020132 @ Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 03:01) *
Hi
Thanks for support to all of you. You guys are gem. I hope you will help me to take this to logical conclusion.
So, here is my detailed version of the story. All help will be appreciated. I am writing in as much detail as possible but feel free to point me out to if i miss any thing important.

This car is a hire car and the contract is in my wife's name (Mrs. XYZ) and I am her husband (Mr. ABC). XYZ does only have a provisional license and does not even know how to drive and I mainly drive this car and it has my insurance on it and everything.

On 1st March 2018, I[the driver] was in the mentioned area to pick up something from my brother[a relative] who lives in these flats where this parking is situated. It was a snowing heavily. I [The driver] was with my wife XYZ and my[her] 2 year old son. I[The driver] asked her to go in the lift to 5th floor to pick the item up. In the meantime, I[the driver] asked verbally the concerage guy[building's concierge] (who attends parking as well) if I can[the driver could] wait here[there] in my [the] car and he said its fine and I was in my car. She[XYZ] picked the item up from my brother[the relative] and when she was coming back, the lift got broken and she called me[the driver,] saying that the lift is broken and she was stuck in it on the 5th floor. So, I[the driver] went to the conceirage[concierge] and told him the situation and he said dont worry he will sort it out. In the meantime, fire alarm of something building started and he went to attend that as first priority. And he asked me[the driver] to go the lift on 5th floor by stairs and calm XYZ down and I will be there in sometime[that he would attend shortly]. I[The driver then] went to the 5th floor and I was checking onto my wife as she [checked on XYZ and] was with my[her children] 2 year old son and 2 months old girl as well.

Etc.

--Churchmouse

i see now. Thank you so very much. That helped alot
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 09:50
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



QUOTE (10020132 @ Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 13:01) *
QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 13 Oct 2018 - 08:36) *
Write to Gladstones, complain about the lack of the letter, and demand a copy of all the documents they intend to use in court in order to narrow the issues between you. As they must have these documents to hand in order to perform due diligence before issuing the claim you require the documents within 7 days.


I wanted to know what to write to these people. Is it an informal letter or does this has a template as well


Anyone please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:48
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



In the time taken you could ha ve written somerhing yourself.
Youve already been given the skeleton of what to ask for.

It is a FORMAL LETTER, as you are in a FORMAL PROCESS.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 12:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 01:02
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



Thanks for your reply

I have written a letter to them earlier asking for the documents but I haven't heard anything back (while waiting for a response from this forum) as I thought it won't do any harm

I included my detail like name address case number etc
But I wasn't sure as to why they didn't reply so I thought to check with you guys. Maybe I missed out something in the letter due to which I didn't receive a response
Thats the reason I was asking for if I need to write anything specific then I can write them a second letter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 07:11
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,684
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



They probably haven't go the paperwork to send you. Just make a note that there was no response

You should edit your post that quoted Churchmouse and Churchmouse should edit his post as it shows too much detail.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 03:59
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 07:11) *
They probably haven't go the paperwork to send you. Just make a note that there was no response

You should edit your post that quoted Churchmouse and Churchmouse should edit his post as it shows too much detail.


Thanks for your comment. Sorry I am new here and dont know much about it. I am trying to but I cant find any edit button or even delete button. Pardon me for being naive. Can you please guide?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 05:58
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



Dear members,
Thanks alot for your help so far. I have managed to read as many posts and have written a defence (I hope I spelt it correctly this time). tbh its not written rather most of it is copy pasted from different topics - the relevant bit- (Is copy pasting even allowed?)

I know its long, but I will appreciate if someone take some time out of their precious time and help me in amending it if it required ( I am sure it will be required )

My response

1. It admit that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the hirer of the vehicle.

2. It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the hirer. Moreover, with notice to Hirer, the copy of rental agreement was not enclosed which means that they have failed to comply with POFA 14 (2) (a). Also, the notice fails to comply with many other requirements of POFA namely, not identifying the creditor 14 (5)(e), failed to give warning required in 14 (5) ©.

4. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way

5. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

6. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

7. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the final sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed to £16X.XX (excluding court fees and alleged legal costs). This appears to be an added cost with no apparently no qualification. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

8. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement or even any licence to park without a permit, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case held, ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum without agreement on the charge and any issue of trespass would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. The amount claimed is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty. Even if all the conditions had been met to disengage the penalty, the Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable ( ParkingEye v Somerfield). In summary this case differs to 'the Beavis case' as:
i) The Private Parking Charge has not followed an "effectively binding" code of practice.
ii) The Claimant has no commercial justification
iii) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA Code of Practice
iv) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
v) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

9. Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott vs Loake(1982) in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with and the claimant may not quote reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 6 only allows the claimant to pursue the registered keeper for parking charges where they serve a notice to driver AND a notice to keeper which contains the stipulated mandatory information outlined in paragraph 8 of the same schedule. Notwithstanding that the claimant claims no right to pursue the defendant as the registered keeper under POFA, the claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.

11. If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.
a)
No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

b)
Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

c)
Where no Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 9, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

d)
No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keepers details in accordance with Paragraph
11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

12. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

13. In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt. The withheld information in itself is a breach of Code of Practice. The claim becomes invalidated under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.
1c. The particulars of claim also fails to specify where the acts “constituting the conduct were done” in accordance with 7.5. A date is listed within the particulars but fails to list what the offence is related to.
1d. In accordance with CPR, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.
1e. Under Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols 6c, the Claimant has failed to disclose ”key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” or followed legislative procedure outlined in the Protections of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4

14. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success.

15. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

17. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on OPPOSITE SIDE of road at the time of the alleged events were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time. The Claimant did not display clear signs within the site that were capable of being read and/or form a contract. There is no prominent signage at the entrance of the parking area. Signage is totally unlit. Other signs are raised high up with small text which is difficult to read. Considering the severity of weather that night, as it was snowing badly, it was impossible to read the signs even in evidence provided along with PCN. In the absence of any signage that contractually bind a driver then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case. Furthermore, The Defendant has not been established as the driver of the vehicle, therefore it is irrelevant whether the Claimant feels the Defendant has seen the signs or not.

18. In Case number B6QZ4H3R of UKPC v Mr M, Judge Ellington found that the signage displayed only made an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders could be bound by the contractual terms conveyed.

19. It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Parking Control Management Limited. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no standing to bring this case. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
The Claimant states that as the Defendant has not paid the charge within 28 days they have breached the contract. They state that the breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages in addition to the charges.

a) The Defendant has no contract with the Claimant as they are not the driver.
b) The Defendant has shown how no contract could have been formed with the driver due to inadequate and improper signage.
c) As no contract has been breached, the Claimant cannot be due damages for breaching a contract

20. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

21. Permission was given by conceirage because of extreme weather to park outside the building to make a delivery. This situation is like loading/unloading which was determined in the appeal case of Homeguard v Jobson, 9GF0A9E Oxford, June 2016

22. Because of matters outside of control, as there was a fire in the building and the passengers of the car got stuck in the lift as it broke down, we were unable to leave immediately

23. The defendant (hirer) was not driving at the time. Infact, defendatn (hirer) does not even possess a driving license. Since, I was not the driver, then I cannot, as stated in Notice to Hirer, be liable for the charge after 28 days, only the driver is liable as stated in Notice to Hirer.


Also, for points 21-23, do I need to add more details? or should I leave for a later time?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 11:08
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You've likely waited too long - by each of your posts will be an "EDIT" button, but it goes after a certain time. ALso it may not show up on mobile browsers - use a real laptop or PC

3) Explain what this means.
Presume that the Judge reading this has no clue what POFA is, or what it does

So you would state
- The claimant has failed to follow the strict provisions of POFA2012 (type it out in full the first time) to hold the defendant, the Hirer of the vehicle liable, and has provided no proof of their claim that the defendant is the driver. The mandatory enclosures required under POFA2012 para.... (give the precise para, you must know it by now!) were not included with the Notice to Hirer, and have never been served on the defendant. In addition, the notice to hirer was further deficient as it failed to...

Delete 5 and 6 completely

7) shorten this. 2 lines max. I'd then put it at the end, because it isnt a denial of the whole claim, just a quibble over the amount claimed. As such, logically, it goes towards the end. You want it to be - dismiss the claim because... OR dismiss the claim because... OR dismiss the claim because... OR ... OR ok if I am liable it is not for the full amount. See how this is a weaker point - by definition!

In all, your defence is overly long and complex, and jumps about. Take a step back and look at this through the eyes of someone reading this for the first time - it needs to flow, without jumping around, and be concise. Logically structured.

8) You have literally copied in. Do you understand it all? DOes it all apply?

9) and 10) are just repeats of POFA. Why include them again? If youre going to include them, why are they seperate from your OTHER POFA points?

11) DO THEY CLAIM TO BE USING POFA???? If NO then this is ALL irrelevant! You just make the single, simple claim that they do not use POFA, so cannot claim from you as the Hirer of the vehicle. Thats it.

12) is a repeate of an eaerlier point, I think

13 - 15) Far too long.

17) You start this with an IF, yet havent actually brought up Standing at all. Why havent you done so? Every single defence queries their rights to exist on the land in question, as they dont own the land and so can only be there if they have a contract, and can only sue in their name ie have standing if the contract permits it explicitly.

I woudl shorten this. Concise, sharp points work much better than rambling lists. Get to the heart - that signs were not present where teh vehicle was parked, they were high up, unlit and difficult to read, and the extreme weather *which you dont really state clearly enough* meant that it woudl be even more unlikely that any driver could have seen the supposed signs, even compared to a normal night. Notice hjow this is 2 lines not 7?

18) Is this the case here? TRhis sentence is orphaned - you just put it in, without any explanation or introduction!

19) NOW you bring in standing, AFTER para 17 that first talks about standing! You cannot have a jumble of paragraphs with no structure!
I would shorten it to: It is averred that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim, as the proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder, and proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the claimant that grants the authority to the claimant to issue charges on this land in their own name and to pursue these charges to court.

You then go on to say...
"The Claimant states that as the Defendant has not paid the charge within 28 days they have breached the contract. They state that the breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages in addition to the charges....
"

Yet this clearly does not belong with the para on standing, yet it does not have its own numbered para.Frankly, I would delete all of that. Theyre not entitled to anything as they havent complied with POFA. End of.

21) Yeah, you cannot just tag items on at the end! Logically this would go much further UP the defence
THis isnt a defence as yo uhave presented it
If you had, instead, said:
"The driver t the time was given permission to unload goods, due to the extreme weather, by an Agent of the Landowner, the concierge. This permission means the Driver at the time can rely upon a licence granted by the landowner to stop their vehicle to load and unload, and is not bound by any secondary contract as this secondary contract cannot Offer anything of value that the driver does not already have" or similar.

23) GAH! WHY NOT PUT THAT AT THE TOP!
By saying you want them to prove who the driver was, you invite the Court to just ASK YOU. If you instead state you, the defendant, CANNOT be the driver as you do not hold a driving licence, it forestalls that and makes YOUR version seem much more credible! They might ask WHY you hired a vehicle you cant drive - a normal hire company wouldnt be happy with that! - so you could also pre-empt this.

22) I would suggest is irrelevant and would go in a witness statement
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 13:10
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



Thabks for your time and patience to help me
I will organize it today and post it again

But one thing I want to ask is that since they haven't given me any document so how will I know whether they are referring to PoFA or not? I am pre empting every thing. Is that correct?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 14:06
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You havent been served a copy of the hire agreement and so, whether or not they reference pOFA, theyc annot hold you, the hirer, liable

If you dont know how they dont comply other than the FACT that you have not been served a NtH or the mandaotry enclosures, then obviously you cant put these details in. But by saying they dont comply with POFA as a defence point - and we KNOW THEY DO NOT! - you can later expand on this

Once your SAR comes back from the claimant
WHich I presume you have sent...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Thu, 1 Nov 2018 - 19:45
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



As I wrote previously that they haven't replied back to me yet so I believe they are not going to reply as its been too long now
But I will update my points and will your guidance further

Thanks for all the help
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 04:23
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



Based on your really helpful guidance, I have changed my defence and tried to be as organised and logical as possible. Please guide me through if anything else needs amendment
Thanks in anticipation

1. It admit that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the hirer of the vehicle.
2. It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

Presumption of Registered Keeper as Driver
3. The claimant has failed to follow the strict provisions of Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012 to hold the defendant, the Hirer of the vehicle liable, and has provided no proof of their claim that the defendant is the driver.. I choose to defend this claim as the hirer. Moreover, the mandatory enclosures required under POFA2012 para 14(2) were not included with notice to Hirer, and have never been served to defendant, which means that they have failed to comply with POFA 14 (2) (a). In addition, the notice to hirer was further deficient as it failed to comply with many other requirements of POFA namely, not identifying the creditor 14 (5)(e), failed to give warning required in 14 (5) ©.
4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 schedule 4 paragraph 6 only allows the claimant to pursue the registered keeper for parking charges where they serve a notice to driver AND a notice to keeper which contains the stipulated mandatory information outlined in paragraph 8 of the same schedule. Notwithstanding that, the claimant claims no right to pursue the defendant as the registered keeper under POFA, the claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.
5. The Defendant cannot be the driver as the defendant does not hold full driving license or any car insurance. Since, I was not the driver, then I cannot, as stated in Notice to Hirer, be liable for the charge after 28 days, only the driver is liable as stated in Notice to Hirer.

Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with and the claimant may not quote reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

Signage and Contract
1. There is no prominent signage at the entrance of the parking area. The signs (that even on OPPOSITE side of the road) at the time of the alleged event were high up, unlit and difficult to read. The extreme weather on the particular night when it was snowing heavily meant that it would be even more unlikely that any driver could have seen the supposed signs, even compared to a normal night. In the absence of any signage that contractually bind a driver, then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case. Furthermore, The Defendant has not been established as the driver of the vehicle, therefore it is irrelevant whether the Claimant feels the Defendant has seen the signs or not.
2. In Case number B6QZ4H3R of UKPC v Mr M, Judge Ellington found that the signage displayed only made an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders could be bound by the contractual terms conveyed. Since the driver was parking without a permit, hence no contract was ever formed and this would become a case of trespassing as found in case number 4GF26K6 of Parking Control Management (UK) v Christopher Bull. In such an event, only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder, and proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the claimant that grants the authority to the claimant to issue charges on this land in their own name and to pursue these charges to court. Since they do not have an authority to issue such a claim, so the case has no standing.
3. The driver at the time was given permission to unload goods, due to the extreme weather, by an Agent of the Landowner, the concierge. This permission means the Driver at the time can rely upon a licence granted by the landowner to stop their vehicle to load and unload, and is not bound by any secondary contract as this secondary contract cannot offer anything of value that the driver does not already have. This situation is like loading/unloading which was determined in the appeal case of Homeguard v Jobson, 9GF0A9E Oxford, June 2016

Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. As no contract has been breached, the Claimant cannot be due damages for breaching any contract.
The Claimant states that as the Defendant has not paid the charge within 28 days they have breached the contract. They state that the breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages in addition to the charges.

a) The Defendant has no contract with the Claimant as they are not the driver.
b) The Defendant has shown how no contract could have been formed with the driver due to inadequate and improper signage.
c) As no contract has been breached, the Claimant cannot be due damages for breaching a contract


Excessive Charge & Civil Procedure Rules
In the event that the court believes that I am liable to any payment, I want to dispute the excessive amount being charged
1. The alleged debt of £16X.XX (excluding court fees and alleged legal costs) appears to be an added cost with no justification. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
2. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise as It just states “parking charges” which is not a fair exchange of information. Apart from properly incurred court fees, any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.
3. In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt. The withheld information in itself is a breach of Code of Practice. The claim becomes invalidated under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 1c-e

I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Fri, 2 Nov 2018 - 06:13
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



One more thing that I recall is that when I appealed to them they didn't respond to it within 28 days
And when they responded I appealed to IAS which asked them as to if they have responded late and hence admitted my appeal for consideration. Should I mention this any where? P. S. The appeal was filed by the husband of defendanr though in his own name

The appeal filed with IAS was never concluded either. Should I mention that any where?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 11:44
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



Can someone please help me as I need to submit my response by Monday? In 2 days time
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 14:36
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



You can do a section on it on the basis you have followed their appeals procedure and appealed both to PCM and then IAS, PCM replied past the deadline and IAS have never replied.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Sat, 3 Nov 2018 - 17:53
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



Thanks for the response

And can you please also advise if the defence I posted above is fine or does it require any amendments?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
10020132
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 04:16
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 7 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,264



Hi
I will appreciate if someone can help

I posted my defence within the deadline and the court has received it

Today I received a letter from the gladstones solicitor detailing the information that they would recommend to deal the case without hearing as its straight forward case etc.(similar to the one that I saw in other threads and I understood from other threads that I should opt for in person hearing)

But my question is that I received the letter from solicitors not from the court. So do I need to take any action yet? Or should I just wait to hear from court?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 09:13
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,029
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Standard Gladstones response to all defences

You don't need to do anything yet

When the court sends you the Directions Questionnaire form, make clear that you do not consent to the Claimant's application for a paper hearing

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:55
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,684
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You need to send a similar response given in the threads that you found about "straight forward case". If you don't get your own copy of the DQ from the court within a few days then ask the court if they have sent it or print your own copy and send it to the court and Gladstones, along with your response requiring a hearing.

As always first class and free certificate of posting.

This post has been edited by ostell: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 10:56
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: Sunday, 18th November 2018 - 00:35
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.