PCN - County Court Notice - Gladstone Solicitors, Please help me appeal - county claim form received |
PCN - County Court Notice - Gladstone Solicitors, Please help me appeal - county claim form received |
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 10:21
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 17 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,439 |
Hello,
I am looking for help in appealing a county court claim form I received for a PCN, the alleged breach of civil contract was on 02/06/2017. The claimant is UK Car Park Management Ltd and the legal representatives are Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. Below are all the relevant facts to my case and the alleged breach > On 02/06/2017 'The Driver' parked on private property next to Anytime Fitness Gym, Birmingham, believing it to be the gym's car park > The car park is shared with a business next door (Avix Business Centre) and the car parking area is divided between the two > Therefore 'The Driver' was accidentally parked on private property from 07:34am - 08:33am > Avix business centre was not a public car park, it was private parking for their offices > The signage was not clear > There was no ticket on the vehicle's windscreen when the driver returned to the vehicle > My registered home address at the time was near St Albans, Hertfordshire, but i was away for work in birmingham from Jan 17 - Sep 17 in rented accommodation > The first PCN was posted to my home address, by the time i opened it when i returned home months later the 14 day discounted amount had expired and I was facing £100 fine > I simply couldn't afford that amount, didn't even have that much money in my bank account, so i ignored it > Between then and now i received roughly 10 letters, escalating the threats etc, all of which i ignored, I have not provided any correspondence whatsoever from my side with them at any point > On 17/08/2018 I finally received the county court claim form, the total amount being claimed is £249.32, with 14 days to appeal from date of the letter > The date of issue of the claim form was 14/08/2018 My grounds for appeal from a non-legal, layman's point of view The initial amount claimed was £100 discounted to £60, which is an unfair amount not supported by any reasonable basis. It was an almost completely deserted car park right outside the gym at 8am, there is no cost to their business and the signage was not clear enough. Final note I would really appreciate any and all help with this process UPDATE - ATTACHMENTS I have added the following attachments: > Street View 1 and Street View 2 - shows the location, signs are too blurry in google maps but might be useful for reference > Letter before claim- the letter received from gladstones This post has been edited by TomCatDog12345: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 12:45 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 10:21
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 12:05
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You realise you are not appealing?
This would be a defence You need to chase them up. Send another letter, proving theyve not responded |
|
|
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 12:09
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 17 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,439 |
You realise you are not appealing? This would be a defence You need to chase them up. Send another letter, proving theyve not responded Apologies, I'm aware it is a defence per the advice already given, just a mistake. I'll send another letter today, is there anything else I should do at this stage? |
|
|
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 12:15
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
What else CAN you do?
If you already have pictures of signage, understand where signs are etc, there isnt a lot of prep work you can do. |
|
|
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 12:24
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 17 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,439 |
Nothing else I am aware of, are you aware of any guidance you would recommend on how to prepare my defence for this case?
Thank you for the responses btw |
|
|
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 12:43
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Don't bother sending another letter
Get on with your defence When it comes to the part about the additional costs, you say that you have the reasonable belief that they have not been paid to the debt collector You have asked the Claimant's solicitor to explain the charge but the request has been ignored |
|
|
Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 12:54
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 17 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,439 |
I have completed a first draft of my defence, by tailoring another similar defence found on this forum and taking into account all of the advice given in this thread so far. I would really appreciate any review points as i'm sure it's clear from the rest of this thread I have no experience in anything like this.
Once again thank you for all the responses. In the County Court Claim Number: Between xxxx (Claimant) and xxxx (Defendant) Statement of Defence I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons. 1. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained. 2. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach. 3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have not been provided. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action. 4. 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 Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action. 5. 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.’ 6. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out. 7. The defendant wrote to the claimant on 17/08/2018 asking for: a) Copies of all the documents that will be used in court. In particular, the Notice to Keeper allegedly sent by the claimant, to be received via email or postal mail within 7 days of the request. 7 days is a more than sufficient time scale as these documents should have already been in possession of Gladstones Solicitors. b) An explanation for why the claimant or legal counsel believes that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 4 (5) does not apply. The requirements of the statue limits the amount that can be claimed from the keeper to the amount on the original notice. The amount on the original notice was £100 and the amount claimed before interest per the claim form was £160, which includes additional charges of £60. The claimant has not responded. 8. No response was received to this request, the refusal to supply these documents is a blatant disregard for the overriding objectives of these proceedings. 9. a) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. b) 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. 10. a) The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read. b) 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. 11. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible. 12. a) No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not. b) The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs. c) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. d) Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable. CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. 12. The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'. I believe the facts stated in this defence are true. (Name) (Signature) (Date) This post has been edited by TomCatDog12345: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 17:17 |
|
|
Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 16:32
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 490 Joined: 10 Oct 2004 Member No.: 1,737 |
Proof read
|
|
|
Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 17:21
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 14 Joined: 17 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,439 |
I have proof read the post just now, a few things I had missed in the first draft.
Am I along the right lines with this defence? Are there any obvious points i've missed out/points that need re-working? Or am I way off the mark? |
|
|
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 10:21
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 640 Joined: 11 Feb 2007 Member No.: 10,571 |
What happened to this case?
This post has been edited by Howard0181: Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 10:21 |
|
|
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 - 12:19
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
According to his profile, TCD hasn't returned to the Forum since a few days after his last post
You could try sending him a private message |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:49 |