Hi, I'm someone and I have received a court claim for nearly £450 for 2 tickets on private land last year. The company is District Enforcement and served by Gladstones..
https://ibb.co/xzB97Wd
I have looked through a lot of the forum over the past few days and can't find a thread to match this claim. I parked on a derelict site behind an old BHS which went out of business a while back, this is 41-45 Foregate street. The land is owned by Imperial London.

District Enforcement has authority to manage the land next door, as shown in the photos inside the red border. This is 27-35 Foregate street, this land is owned by Blue Coast Managers. So they are obviously abusing their position by ticketing my vehicle.

I made an appeal on both tickets and pointed out that they have no authority to manage the relevent land. They sent templated letters suggesting they have a right to ticket me

The following show a photo of the vehicle with a blue X showing the substation in the background. This is marked with a blue box on the google maps so you can see the position of the vehicle in relation to the land they are authorised to manage.I have both land registry maps to back up my evidence.
https://ibb.co/2hKW4jY
https://ibb.co/HPN3jbs
In December, I received another LBC for the same site. I spent about 6 months trying to explain to Gladstones that their client had no authorisation. Finally earlier this month they conceded and dropped all tickets. 5 days later they launched a court claim for the other tickets. I was that frustrated with them, emailing back and forth, that I forgot all about the second LBC.

I would like some help on what my options are to produce a solid defence and perhaps receive damages for misuse of data, etc.


Thank you all for reading

And my attempt at defence, will this be ok?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Dipsticks Enforcement (Claimant)

-and-

Myself (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2 The particulars of the claim on the N1 form refer to parking charges allegedly occurred between 30/07/2018 and 06/08/2018, and state that the defendant agreed to pay the parking charges. The defendant denies all liability for these charges.
3. The Claimant is attempting to deceive the Defendant by falsifying evidence, claiming the vehicle is parked at 27-35 Foregate Street, owned by Blue Coast Managers. The Defendant does not disputed that the claimant has authority from the landowner to police this land.
4. The facts, supported by the Claimants photographic evidence show the vehicle clearly parked at 41-45 Foregate Street, owned by Imperial London ltd. The claimant has no traceable authority with the relevant landowners, Imperial London ltd.
4.1 These facts were pointed out clearly to the Claimant via Email on the 20th March 2019 regarding other unlawful tickets. This matter was dropped on the 19th July 2019. The claimant was also informed that any further communication regarding the Claimants unlawful actions would be seen as harassment.
4.2 The Claimant is solely responsible for ensuring the parking tickets have been issued correctly. Any suggestion otherwise should be rejected.
5. Both the KADOE contract (Keeper At Date Of Event) and the IPC code of practice require there to be traceable authority from the landowner or holder to the Claimant to issue parking tickets. Since the claimant has no right to operate on the land, this is a clear breach of Data Protection laws as the claimant has acted fraudulently to create the impression of reasonable cause to access the DVLA database, whereas there is none.
6. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.
7. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.
8. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
9. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £160, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.
10. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.
11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.
12. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
13. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

"I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true."

While you have a strong defence for sure, what you have above is a mash up of a defence - which is the *legal argument* why you are not liable - and a witness statement, which tells the story of what happened, and includes references to the evidence you have - such as Gladstones conceding the other PCNs


11) As an acknowledged driver, I dont see how copying and pasting POFA2012 stuff helps. It shows you dont know what youre talking about. POFA only helps keepers, not drivers.

Your defence is simple

1) THe D denies the vehicle was parked at...
2) The D avers the vehicle was parked at...
3) The C own documents confirm that the vehicle was parked at....
4) The C has no authority to operate at ... and therefore no standing to offer contracts at location .... AS no contract can be offered by the C as they lack standing to do so, no contract could have been broken and therefore no liability can be found against D.
5) and so on.

I would make it simpler

Thank you, I will have another shot.

Do you know how t construct a defence?

Go to MSE forum -> newbies thread -> post 2
Gives concise answers.

1) Have you acknowledged the claim? Yes or No. If NO do it online. Follow instructions in post 2.
2) What is the DATE OF ISSUE of the claim?

Yes, the claim was acknowledged a while back. 22nd July was date of issue. Have been looking through these forums for a similar case to mine to copy, but to no avail.

I'm not too hot on defence constructing, thanks for the tip. I'll have a look now

Dont look for similar *situations*, look for the same *underlying* defences. A defence of "no authorioty to operate" is the same if it is VCS operating on a site or its another PPC.