Private parking tickets - don't know how to appeal, Threads merged |
Private parking tickets - don't know how to appeal, Threads merged |
Fri, 19 May 2017 - 07:20
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 May 2017 Member No.: 91,791 |
Hi, I have been issued a PCN by CPM uk car park management for parking in a private car park.
I was parking in there in the late evening, the car park doesn't have a ticket machine and I incorrectly assumed that it would be ok to park in the evening. I now have 2 parking tickets all relating to parking for no more than 2 hrs each time. Is there any way that I can appeal this tickets. The addrsss of the car park is Lawrence street in Stockport Appreciate any help to avoid paying this cost. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 19 May 2017 - 07:20
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 21:12
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 May 2017 Member No.: 91,791 |
|
|
|
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 21:26
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
deleted
This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 21:40 |
|
|
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 21:34
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
|
|
|
Wed, 15 Aug 2018 - 22:13
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Follow the instructions to acknowledge service
You do not contest jurisdiction (if you live in England and Wales) You dispute the whole of the claim Do not put anything at all in the defence box Use the Report button and ask the mods to merge the threads |
|
|
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 07:00
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 May 2017 Member No.: 91,791 |
Did you receive a letter before claim? If yes, let’s see it (suitably redacted). Did you reply to it? If yes, let’s see it (suitably redacted too). Ostell - what is it that tells you the OP has not received a claim form? I can’t remember receiving a letter before claim form. I may have just ignored it. |
|
|
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 08:59
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
It wasnt a form. It was a letter
Noone told you to ignore that, just ignore debt collectors You MUST go online TODAY, WITHOUT DELAY, and acknowledge service This gives you THIRTY THREE DAYS from the DATE OF ISSUE (which you have blanked out!) for tehc ourt to receive yuor defence.What is the date of issue? Given you almost certainly DID get a LBC, even the crap Gladstones one, youre now on the back foot as YOU are the one who looks unreasonable, not the claiamnt. You MUST do this. THis isnt optional. |
|
|
Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 19:59
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 May 2017 Member No.: 91,791 |
It wasnt a form. It was a letter Noone told you to ignore that, just ignore debt collectors You MUST go online TODAY, WITHOUT DELAY, and acknowledge service This gives you THIRTY THREE DAYS from the DATE OF ISSUE (which you have blanked out!) for tehc ourt to receive yuor defence.What is the date of issue? Given you almost certainly DID get a LBC, even the crap Gladstones one, youre now on the back foot as YOU are the one who looks unreasonable, not the claiamnt. You MUST do this. THis isnt optional. The date of issue for the claim form is 14th August. I have now acknowledged the claim and have received Confirmation. What are the next steps? |
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 08:50
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Well, the form tells you to send in a defence - so that is, of course, the next step
YOu need to get on with your research Look in THIS forum for 2018 defences Look in the MSE Forum -> NEWBIES thread -> Post number two for ALL stages of court. You MUST bookmark this page, as it tells you about ALL stages of the court process. It also gives you example defences. |
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 08:52
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
....and post up your defence for critique before you send.
|
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 09:16
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You have 33 days from the 14th of august for the court to RECEIVE your
written in Word printed signed scanned EMAILED to CCBCAQ... email address Defence. |
|
|
Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 17:25
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 May 2017 Member No.: 91,791 |
Here is the first draft of my defence, what do you guys think. Used examples of others I have found online
In the County Court Claim Number: Between xxxx (Claimant) and xxxx (Defendant) Defence Statement Preliminary Matters. (1). The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says 1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions. (2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point: 1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a): 1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £1000’, 2. those which are incoherent and make no sense, 3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant (3). The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. 1. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings. On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action. 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. 1. The Claimant did not identify the driver 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's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage. Further, the Notice to Keeper (postal 'PCN') failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant is unable to rely on the 'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA. (2) 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. 1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt. 2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred. 3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. 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 / Damages” 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.’ f) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient and 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. (3) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. 1. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre- action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings. (4) The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxx to query the invoice, as no contract was formed between the landowner and driver of the vehicle. The claimant has not responded. (5). UK Car Park Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim. 1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. 2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question. 3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. (6) 1. 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. 2. 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. (7) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist 1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read. 2. 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. (8) 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. (9) 1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs. 2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. 4. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable. 5. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. I believe the facts stated in this defence are true. |
|
|
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 07:45
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You have random carriage returns, making that really difficult to read
Add extar carriage returns between the paragraphs. You have just a single block of text, basically It isnt a defence "statement". Its just a defence. |
|
|
Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 08:08
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Lose most of that pre-amble
It's almost as long as the defence I would rearrange the order Incompetent Particulars of Claim UKCPM legal capacity Identity of driver and POFA failings Inadequate and unlit signs Driver did not agree contract If Driver did anything wrong, it was trespassing - only landowner can claim not UKCPM and damages limited Deny the additional costs were incurred especially if they are debt collector charges or earlier letters describe them as legal costs If a previous Gladstones letter had a debt collector reference number, comment that you believe it was not sent by the solicitor Why Beavis does not apply Ditch the dispute of £50 legal representative fee That can be recovered whenever a legal representative is used This post has been edited by Redivi: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 08:09 |
|
|
Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 15:29
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 May 2017 Member No.: 91,791 |
Thanks guys, I made the amendments as suggested. Gladstone’s have written to me to advise the have decided to proceed with the claim and do not want to mediate.
They have made a request that the case be dealt with on the papers without the need for a hearing. I’m assuming I should decline their request and insist on a hearing? |
|
|
Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 15:39
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Standard Gladstones response
Search for the phrase "Reasonably straightforward" in the top right hand corner of this page for a suitable response when you send your Directions Questionnaire to the court |
|
|
Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 12:44
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 May 2017 Member No.: 91,791 |
I have received a letter before claim from Gladstone’s for the other 2 parking tickets that I got. As before I did write to them as per the advice but never got a response.
Any advice on how to proceed with this letter before claim for the 2 other tickets |
|
|
Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 16:16
Post
#37
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Why should it be any different?
You could also write to them enclosing the ref for the others, and noting they still havent responded. Their 30 days was up... |
|
|
Tue, 2 Oct 2018 - 18:49
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 27 Joined: 5 May 2017 Member No.: 91,791 |
|
|
|
Wed, 3 Oct 2018 - 09:55
Post
#39
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
ANy specific reason why not? We cant mind read.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:35 |