PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Count court claim form private parking
Dheeraj
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 15:12
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Member No.: 37,924



Hello experts,

I have received a court claim form for parking in a private space. They had sent me PCN which I did not reply to or accepted to pay. The parking company is Euro Parking Services ltd and the solicitors are Gladstones solicitors ltd. Need advice on what do to in this scenario.

Many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 28)
Advertisement
post Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 15:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Dheeraj
post Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 11:06
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Member No.: 37,924



Hi, I have now received the documents from the parking company following my Subject Access Request. It's a big documents with all the images and PCN/folllow up letters. I was wondering what should be posted here for experts to take a look? Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 30 Mar 2019 - 08:40
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The first PCN that they allege they sent you, suitably redacted, but leave the dates.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dheeraj
post Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 09:11
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Member No.: 37,924



Hi, please find the pcn images uploaded here. I have not had a response from Gladstone solicitors yet, it has been more than 7 days. Should I call them to remind or send a letter by post too?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dheeraj
post Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 13:27
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Member No.: 37,924



Hi, any thoughts on the PCN posted here. appreciate your inputs on this. I soon need to prepare a defence. The claim was raised on 15th March 2019.

QUOTE (Dheeraj @ Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 10:11) *
Hi, please find the pcn images uploaded here. I have not had a response from Gladstone solicitors yet, it has been more than 7 days. Should I call them to remind or send a letter by post too?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dheeraj
post Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 16:26
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Member No.: 37,924



I did not receive any reply from Gladstone solicitors when requested for below information:

------------------------------
Dear Sir/Madam

Ref *****

I have received a claim regarding these parking notices

I no longer possess either of the parking notices or any subsequent correspondence

In accordance with the Over-riding Objective, I require copies of all the documents and photographs that your client intends to rely on

In addition to the parking notices and subsequent correspondence I require :

1 The documentary evidence required by your client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question.
2 A copy of your client's contract with Debt Recovery Plus and evidence that it paid the charges
3 Photographs of the signs at the location and a site plan
4 Evidence that the signs have the required planning consent or an explanation why it is not required
5 A clear statement whether the claim is for (a) a contractual charge (b) a breach of a contract or © trespass

I presume that you have completed the due diligence on your client's evidence prior to raising the claim and expect to receive the documents within 7 days.

I have attached a picture of my passport for ID purposes.

Regards,

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

I have prepared my defence based on above and the fact that the driver did not enter into any contract as their was no offer of parking. I have got images from the SAR which I can attach here if needed to add to it. Please could you have a look and advise if it looks ok. Also can the defence be send by email or it has to be posted?

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

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2) The terms on the Claimant's signage do not offer any kind of parking service to anyone who isn't in a pre-authorised vehicle or holding a permit. If there is no offer of parking then the basic requirements for forming a contract with the driver are not present (in basic terms, 'offer', 'acceptance', and 'consideration'), and no contract can be formed. If there is no contract then there is no breach, and hence no charge for a breach. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

3) The Defendant believes, Parking in what is effectively a 'no parking' arrangement would be a Trespass issue, for which only the landholder can take action (not some parking company) and only for nominal or actual damages, not some made-up £100 charge.

4) The Defendant denies that driver or keeper of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue as it states on the claim form.

5) The Defendant denies that the signs at the location were in compliance with the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice

6) The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs. The request has been ignored.

7) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter

8) The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored

9) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

10) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

11). The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

12) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

13) In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dheeraj
post Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 06:33
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Member No.: 37,924



Hello Experts,

Many thanks for the help so far. Please could someone take a look at my defence, never did it so unsure of it. Also the date on the claim is 15th March 2019 so I have to file it by 16th April latest. I understand it can be posted by email, could the email be shared?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dheeraj
post Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 13:32
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Member No.: 37,924



Please find the images of the car and letters.













This post has been edited by Dheeraj: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 - 14:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dheeraj
post Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 15:07
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Member No.: 37,924



Few more points added and some modified, please could someone take a look and advise if it looks ok so i can file it by Wednesday? Also what should be a keeper's stand on, if he knows who was driving or was driving it himself?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2) The terms on the Claimant's signage do not offer any kind of parking service to anyone who isn't in a pre-authorised vehicle or holding a permit. If there is no offer of parking then the basic requirements for forming a contract with the driver are not present (in basic terms, 'offer', 'acceptance', and 'consideration'), and no contract can be formed. If there is no contract then there is no breach, and hence no charge for a breach. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

3) The Defendant believes, Parking in what is effectively a 'no parking' arrangement would be a Trespass issue, for which only the landholder can take action (not some parking company) and only for nominal or actual damages, not some made-up £100 charge.

4) The Defendant denies that driver or keeper of the vehicle agreed to pay an unknown £100 charge as it states on the claim form, given that any signage does not make any offer, any terms are illegible and fail to meet the high bar set by the 'clear and brief, very prominent' signs with the parking sum 'in the largest lettering' as was the case in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

5) The fact is, the driver had no idea of any terms, not least due to large vans parked which would have obscured any signs that may have been (and the Claimant is put to strict proof) capable of being seen at Red Lion Court, where the driver was merely collecting and loading a parcel on a Sunday. The driver held the reasonable belief that loading on a Sunday in this part of Hounslow was exempt activity and unrestricted.

6. Further based upon the scant and deficient details contained in the Particulars of Claim and correspondence, it appears to be the Claimant's case that:
a. There was a contract formed by the Defendant and the Claimant on XX/XX/2017.
b. There was an agreement to pay a sum or parking charge
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The Claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

7. It is denied that:
a. A contract was formed
b. There was an agreement to pay a parking charge.
c. That there were Terms and Conditions prominently displayed around the site.
d. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.
e. The claimant company fully complied with their obligations within the International Parking Community Code of Practice of which they were member at the time.

8) The Defendant denies that the signs at the location were in compliance with the Claimant's trade association Code of Practice in terms of their position, number, and clarity. Where terms on signs were not seen, as in this case, there can be no £100 penalty under contract. This Claimant is known to produce template Witness Statements, disingenuously leading courts to the Respondent's argument in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA and, critically, NOT the ratio of the judgment from Roch LJ, in which Miss Vine prevailed due to unclear signs and the fact that, even though signs existed, she did not see them. Paragraph 19 of that judgment is quite different from the general presumption that the Claimant is likely to invite the Court to make.

9) The Defendant has asked the Claimants solicitor for a site map and photographs of the signs but nothing was provided.

10) The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the capacity to take legal action in this matter

11) The Defendant has asked the Claimant's solicitor for the documentary evidence required by its client's Code of Practice Para B (1.1) that demonstrates sufficient right to occupy the land in question. The request has been ignored

12) The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant ***** , was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) ****** ;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

13) Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

14). The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

15) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

16) The Defendant denies that they 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.
a. The amount demanded is excessive and unconscionable and especially so when compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council which is set at £70 or £35 if paid within 14 days.

17) In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

………………………… (Defendant)
Signature
Date

This post has been edited by Dheeraj: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 15:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dheeraj
post Wed, 17 Apr 2019 - 11:49
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 163
Joined: 1 Jun 2010
Member No.: 37,924



Hi, as per the pictures sent by SAR response, first picture was taken at 12.15 and last one at 12.21 so only 6 mins. Also my last name is mentioned as first name and first name as last name on the claim form, does it invalidate the claim or can be included in my defence?

QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Mon, 18 Mar 2019 - 22:16) *
Is "a few minutes" less than about 10 minutes? If so, they're supposed to offer you a grace period to enter, read the signs, decide not to accept the contract, and leave.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:43
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here