Now that would be amusing, a collection for £18.90! Its simply the principle at this point really!

Hi all sorry for the late reply! The case was dismissed the judge was not impressed at all, I was awarded costs Gladstone's have now ignored all my correspondence and have not paid the costs as outlined on the judgement, what do I do now contact the courts? Totally unprofessional and no respect for court protocol whatsoever Thanks for all your help!

Court day tomorrow! How do I raise the question of 'Right of Audience' do I simply just ask as to what capacity the representative is operating in and whether they have the Right of Audience, don't want to annoy the Judge straight away! Thanks all!

Hi all, Just received the bundle from SIP, what do you make of it? Looks like its been put together very quick, I particularly enjoy the part where they say about providing the keeper with an early repayment discount because it says so on the signage... that is for the driver the NTK didn't provide the keeper with any discount. SIP WS.pdf

Thanks, wasn't sure if all pre-existing court documents such as Acknowledgement of statement was required when sending the bundle.

Cheers, is there any need to include directions questionnaires that were filed?

Okay, So I got all that sorted it was an error with the courts admin they got the documents after all! Now I've got a court date set and the court fee has been paid so I need to get my documents together any tips? What should I be taking with me? Also can you update the thread title as it hasn't been struck out sadly! Thanks!

I contacted the courts they have confirmed receipt of the defence, I have now provided them will all evidence of the delivered and signed for defence to both the courts and Gladdys. Ridiculous, the solicitor has a moral obligation to act in a professional manner. They are in receipt of my defence and have chosen not to disclose this, I await to hear back from the courts regarding this. Regarding the payment that's due on the 9th, what will happen as I await advices from the court? Cheers

Hi all, Just received a new letter saying that the order had now been set aside, apparently Gladdys did submit documents after all and that allegedly the court never received my documents and as result they are now filing a default judgement! Clearly someone at the court has misplaced both our documents, what do I do now! They are ordering for me to pay £175 by the 9th May! I sent it special delivery, so I will have the receipt somewhere, your help on this would be much appreciate, this case just seems to never go away! I have attached the photos Thanks all Default Judgement set aside due to Court Error.pdf

Great news! I received notification last week that the claim was struck out, Gladdys didn't event send any documents to court, very strange considering they sent me an email with their new particulars! Thank you so much for all your help and support, I spent a considerable amount of time putting together the final defence however I'm not too bothered, I'm just glad its over! I will be donating to the board as you guys have helped tremendously x

Thats ericsbrother, looking at the sign that I uploaded Am I right to say that there is no expressed indemnity clause in the 'contract' as Gladstones say there is but I can't see any mention of it on the sign, therefore can this considered to be a vexatious claim? Thanks for your continued support! Hows this for a full defence? The defendant confirms he is the registered keeper of the vehicle 2. ‘Invalid Ticket’ does not constitute as a description of an alleged contravention such as expired, out of date or forged as such a different cause of action should be detailed on the particulars. 3. The damages of £50 for breach of contract are unclear as the Letter Before Action from Gladstones states the amount outstanding is £150 adding an additional £50 to the relevant charge £100 charge. This is not a breach of contract but the claimants solicitors charge, which was struck out by District Judge Sparrow sitting at County Court Southampton 19.08.2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S B9FC508F. 4. The defendant denies the claim for costs on a contractual (indemnity) basis. The defendant has attached photos of the ‘contract’ displayed at the location, (figure 1) the ‘contract’ does not contain express an indemnity clause allowing for such costs to be claimed as such the defendant considers such a claim to be vexatious. 4. The particulars of claim are incorrect under CPR 16.4 (2) (a) (iv) as should the claimant claim for interest the particulars must include; ‘the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation” 5. The claimant has not show cause for action and locus standi by way of failure to respond to a CPR 31.14 request dated 15th September 2016 (figure 2) for sight of the contract between the landowner and themselves that assigns the authority to enter into contracts with the public and to make claims in their own name. 6. The Claimant has failed to comply with the conditions for recovery the charge under Schedule 4 the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 4 (8) (2) (g) in order to create keeper liability the notice must; “inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;” The notice does not provide any information regarding discount for prompt repayment (figure 3) as such the notice is not compliant with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the keeper cannot be pursued for any unpaid ‘charges’. It should also be brought to the attention of the courts that SIP Parking is a registered operator of the IPC (International Parking Committee) an accredited trade associating in the private parking sector. The IPC outlines a strict code of practice for all operators Part C 3.1 (m) also states that The Notice to the Keeper must; “Inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for resolution of disputes or complaints available to the keeper including; Any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and The arrangements under which disputes or complaints may be referred by the keeper to The IPC” (figure 3) The claimant has not complied with the requirements outlined by the IPC’s code of practice as such the keeper of the vehicle cannot be held accountable. The defendant believes it is important to highlight a clear conflict of interest as the Independent Parking Committee who provide the Independent Appeals Service is also owned and operated by the directors of Gladstones Solicitors. Will Hurley and John Davies, in effect the Claimaint’s solicitors have the potential to exert influence via their formulation of the appeals process and appointment of adjudicators, (whose identities are deliberately withheld) over the extent to which appeals are allowed. This in turn is likely to have the consequence of generating more litigation for them to undertake on the IPC’s members behalves. There is also the potential for the Claimant’s solicitors to compromise the supposed independence of the IAS to suit the broader interests of parking management companies who are both its clients and the members of the trade association it operates. 10. The defendant disputes the behaviour of claimants solicitors conduct and that is has acted improperly in accordance to the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 particularly the following points; 2. act with integrity 3. not allow your independence to be compromised; 4. act in the interests of each client; 5. provide a proper standard of service to your clients; 6. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services; 9. The defendant requests the courts to use their discretionary case management abilities and strike out this claim under CPR 3.4 (2) on the basis that the claimant has no standing to bring a claim and that the claimant is abusing the court process and they are a vexatious litigant. 10. The defendant requests for full recovery of costs under CPR 27.14 (2) (g) LiP Research Costs £19 @ 5 hours = £95 Postage Costs £15.46 Total = £110.46 This is a statement of truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I remember when I completed the MCOL statement there was a form before submitting and a space for my email address, shortly after submitting it I received an email from them with the direction questionnaire, there is nowhere else they could have possible got it. I was surprised at the time as I didn't think they would see those details, if not then surely those particulars have not been served correctly then as I have never communicated with them via email!

Thanks for the advice, I shall amend as per your advice. Quick question, Gladdys never sent their new POC's via post, only to my email which they will have seen through MCOL, is this correct service of documents as I have never stated to have documents served this way. Funny considering their email signature strictly states they do NOT accept service of document via email! Do I have grounds to say that the documents haven't been served at all / correctly?

Okay so this is my defence, Im thinking of going for full cost recovery too? The defendant neither claims to be or not to be the driver of the vehicle The defendant confirms he is the registered keeper of the vehicle 3. The Claimant has failed to comply with the conditions for recovery the charge under Schedule 4 the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 4 8, 2 (g) in order to create keeper liability the notice must; “inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;” The notice does not provide any information regarding discount for prompt repayment or provide arrangements for disputes, (figure 1) as such the notice does not comply and the keeper cannot be pursued for any unpaid ‘charges’ It should also be brought to the attention of the courts that SIP Parking is a registered operator of the IPC (International Parking Committee) an accredited trade associating in the private parking sector. The IPC outlines a strict code of practice for all operators Part C 3.1 (m) also states that The Notice to the Keeper must; “Inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for resolution of disputes or complaints available to the keeper including; Any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and The arrangements under which disputes or complaints may be referred by the keeper to The IPC” (figure 2) As the claimant has not complied with the requirements outlined by the IPC’s code of practice the keeper of the vehicle cannot be held accountable. 4. Invalid Ticket, does not refer to expired, out of date or forged as such a different cause of action should be detailed on the particulars. 5. The claimant claims add ons as part of a breach of contract but the sum is due as a contractual charge, the defendant disputes this. 6. The particulars of claim are invalid Under CPR 16.4 (2) (a) (iv) as should the claimant claim for interest the particulars must include; ‘the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation” 7. The claimant has not show cause for action and locus standi by way of CPR 31.14 request. The defendant sent a letter dated 18th August 2016 stating that no contract was offered as the signage is not a contract but an invitation to treat as such no monies are due, this went unacknowledged. The defendant sent a letter dated 15th September 2016 regarding a CPR 31.14 request this went unacknowledged.

These are the second set of POC's from Gladstones after the previous were struck out, I have attached the letter which requested the strike out. They state 'Invalid Ticket Displayed' could one of my points argue that they have been unable to demonstrate why the ticket was invalid? I sent a CPR 31.14 request which was ignored and also a letter denying any contract was offered which also had no response. Im planning to go for that they have failed to show locus standi and cause for action under a CPR31.14 request followed by CPR 27 full costs recovery. With the signage being an invitation to treat, surely the argument of a contractual breach is unjust. , the only mention of a 'contract' are the signs within the car park that you can see once you have parked. Thanks Request Strike Out.pdf