Marc Gander - The Consumer Survival Handbook


A 220 page introduction to all things consumer related by our own BankFodder.

Includes energy companies, mobile phone providers, retailers, banks, insurance companies,debt collection agencies, reclaim companies, secondhand car sellers, cowboy garages, cowboy builders and all the rest who put their own profits before you.

£6.99



Patricia Pearl - Small Claims Procedure - A Practical Guide


An excellent guide for the layperson in how to use the County Court - a must if you are intending to start a claim.

£19.99 + £1.50 (P&P)


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33
  1. #1
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Sep 2018

    Posts
    14

    Default UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Hi,
    First of all, thank you for the support you all provide through this site.

    I have received a parking chargeicon Notice from CPM (UK Car Park Management) for 'Unauthorised Parking' in a small car park. The bays are unmarked and the signs are barely readable attached high on the walls in small prints. I am the registered keeper but not the driver of the time.

    The issue date was last year June 17 and was for £100 or reduced to £60 if payed in 14 days. It was sent to me in post with two pictures of my car in the letter. The reason was 'unauthorised parking'. Since then, I received another letter called 'Formal Demand' roughly after 40 days of the first letter where it says to pay £100.

    Then I started receiving 3 DRP letters (2 in sept and 1 in Oct 17) asking to settle payment of £160. Following that, I received a letter from Gladstone Solicitors in Nov 17 asking me to settle payment of £160 and then another 'letter before claimicon' in June 18.

    Taking advice from other forums, I decided ignoreicon them and I never contacted or reply to any correspondence thinking that they will stop.

    Now (Sept 2018), I have received a Claim Form from county courticon Business Centre, Northampton asking to pay CPM £174.67 + £25 court fee + £50 legal rep fee total of £249.67.

    I have kept all evidence of letters and pic of the car park including the sign they have up.

    I need advise on what to do next.


    I have read different threads and you tube videos and all saying this is fake court.
    The court logos are blurred out and looks like the letter has been copied.
    Is this a actual court?
    The letter contains moneyclaimicon.gov password.

    Please can you offer me advise om what to do next?
    I have 14 days to acknowledge of service then submit my defence.
    I can upload pics of letters and photos upon request.

    Please speak to me in layman's term as I don't fully understand the process.

    Questionnaire:
    1 Date of the infringement[s] - 23/06/2017

    2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 10/07/2017

    3 Date received 13/07/2017

    4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] - not anywhere in the letter far as I can see

    5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - They took two pictures of my car and printed them in the letter

    6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal]
    Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - I did not respond at all

    7 Who is the parking company? CPM

    8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - BPA

    If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here - as mentioned above

    Thank you in advance


  2. #2

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Hello and welcome to CAGicon. Yes, we'll talk to you in layman's terms.


    Thank you for the information so far, could you also fill in this one please with further information about the court claim?


    https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...ed-Aug-2016***


    Best, HB

    PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING
    EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS



    If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

    Illegitimi non carborundum.

    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  3. #3

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Were you ever sent a pap letter? Knowing gladstones its very unlikely. This could stop their claim in its tracks if you didnt get one.

    Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..


    If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  4. #4

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING
    EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS



    If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

    Illegitimi non carborundum.

    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  5. #5

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Welcome to the Forum Dejam99.
    I shouldn't think you have too much to worry about.
    Before you even get to their signage And other necessary regulations they have to comply With before they can have a chance of winning in Court,

    They have already screwed up by taking too long to send Out the NTK.
    It a!so means they have breached GDPRicon.

    Don't reply yet but their Witness Statement should be Interesting as they don't know who the driver was and if They haven't used POFA they cannot pursue you either.

    Sorry about the spacing-I am using an IPad at the moment.

    [spaced for you - dx]

    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  6. #6

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    thread tittle updated

    please stop reading/watching the rubbish on youtube
    it will cost you dearly.

    get that other link done please

    you next moves are below:


    pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimformicon.
    .
    register as an individual
    note the long gateway number given
    then log in
    .
    select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
    .
    then using the details required from the claimform
    .
    defend all
    leave jurisdiction unticked.
    click thru to the end
    confirm and exit MCOL.
    .
    get a CPR 3114 request running to the solicitors
    https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...ng-Court-Claim)
    .
    type your name ONLY

    no need to sign anything
    .
    you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.
    you MUST file a defenceicon regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

    PLEASE REFRAIN FROM HITTING 'REPLY WITH QUOTE' IF YOU ARE SIMPLY REPLYING TO THE LAST POST IN A THREAD..JUST TYPE!!
    it makes a thread twice as long to scroll through..save data costs
    If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread
    DX
    RIP Martin3030

    Follows
    1
    Following
    0

  7. #7

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    I have also seen those utube shorts by people sayig it is a afake court,
    note they reappear to complain they have been done over and got an illegal CCJ when it is all proper and they relied on other utube twonks advice spouting forth FOTM twaddle that harks back to the 17th century.

    It is a court document issued by the business centre so they use computers to print out the forms adn stamp the docs, not soem bloke with half moon spectacles and a quill pen.

    The first thing you will need to do is create an account at money claim.gov.uk and enter your govt gateway number.
    You will find that most of the ones isued by HMRC dont work so just get a new one via the website.
    You then tick the box saying i wish to defend in full and that then buys you another fortnight to submit some kind of a defence.

    At this stage it can be something quite simple such as
    "no keeper liability so no cause for action against defendant and furthermore no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant".

    If they dont respond to the CPR 31.14 request you can also add
    "the claimant has failed to show locus standi by way of an assignment by the landowner to them to enter into contracts and to make civil calims in their own name".

    This will force them to show they have such permissions or thy get sent homw withour being able to say anything else

    Now that will force them to actually do some work and then pay another fee.
    Commonly they dont pay this fee and skulk away knowing they have been rumbled but in the meanwhile you go about gathering the evidence you need to defend the claim shoudl they not want to drop the matter.

    So, pictures of signage, show us what correspondence you have and esp the NTK they originally sent.

    Dont panic, this is all normal for the less honest parking companies.

    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

  8. #8
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Sep 2018

    Posts
    14

    Default Re:  UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Thanks Honeybee13

    I have now submitted the AOS.

    here's my answers:
    Name of the Claimant ? - UK Car Park Management Limited
    claimants Solicitors: Gladstone Solicitors Limited

    Date of issue – 19th Sept 2018

    What is the claim for –

    'The Driver of the vehicle registration ****** (The Vehicle) incurred the parking chargeicon (s) on 23/06/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at 93-101 Greenfield Road - London, Greater London, E1 1EJ.

    The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the Vehicle.

    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
    £160 for parking chargesicon / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £14.67 pursuant to s69 of the county courticon act 1984 at 8%pa, continuing to judgement at £0.04 per day.


    What is the value of the claim? - £249.67

    Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? Uk Car Park Management limited

    Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? - Not sure what it is. I didn't receive anything else other than what's noted in my original post.

    So Far I noticed:

    They took 17 days to issue the NTK.
    DRP - Used Gladstone's letter headed paper to write to me
    UKCPM Trying to recover DRP costs
    I didn't get a PAP letter

    thank you


  9. #9
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Sep 2018

    Posts
    14

    Default Re:  UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Quote Originally Posted by renegadeimp View Post
    Were you ever sent a pap letter? Knowing gladstones its very unlikely. This could stop their claim in its tracks if you didnt get one.
    Nope, I didn't receive one


  10. #10
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Sep 2018

    Posts
    14

    Default Re:  UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Quote Originally Posted by lookinforinfo View Post
    Welcome to the Forum Dejam99.
    I shouldn't think you have too much to worry about.
    Before you even get to their signage And other necessary regulations they have to comply With before they can have a chance of winning in Court,

    They have already screwed up by taking too long to send Out the NTK.
    It a!so means they have breached GDPRicon.

    Don't reply yet but their Witness Statement should be Interesting as they don't know who the driver was and if They haven't used POFA they cannot pursue you either.

    Sorry about the spacing-I am using an IPad at the moment.

    [spaced for you - dx]
    Thank you for the reply.


  11. #11
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Sep 2018

    Posts
    14

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Quote Originally Posted by dx100uk View Post
    thread tittle updated

    please stop reading/watching the rubbish on youtube
    it will cost you dearly.

    get that other link done please

    you next moves are below:


    pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimformicon.
    .
    register as an individual
    note the long gateway number given
    then log in
    .
    select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
    .
    then using the details required from the claimform
    .
    defend all
    leave jurisdiction unticked.
    click thru to the end
    confirm and exit MCOL.
    .
    get a CPR 3114 request running to the solicitors

    .
    type your name ONLY

    no need to sign anything
    .
    you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.
    you MUST file a defenceicon regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    Thank you

    I have done the AOS. I will send the CPR Today.


  12. #12
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Sep 2018

    Posts
    14

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Quote Originally Posted by ericsbrother View Post
    I have also seen those utube shorts by people sayig it is a afake court,
    note they reappear to complain they have been done over and got an illegal CCJ when it is all proper and they relied on other utube twonks advice spouting forth FOTM twaddle that harks back to the 17th century.

    It is a court document issued by the business centre so they use computers to print out the forms adn stamp the docs, not soem bloke with half moon spectacles and a quill pen.

    The first thing you will need to do is create an account at money claim.gov.uk and enter your govt gateway number.
    You will find that most of the ones isued by HMRC dont work so just get a new one via the website.
    You then tick the box saying i wish to defend in full and that then buys you another fortnight to submit some kind of a defence.

    At this stage it can be something quite simple such as
    "no keeper liability so no cause for action against defendant and furthermore no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant".

    If they dont respond to the CPR 31.14 request you can also add
    "the claimant has failed to show locus standi by way of an assignment by the landowner to them to enter into contracts and to make civil calims in their own name".

    This will force them to show they have such permissions or thy get sent homw withour being able to say anything else

    Now that will force them to actually do some work and then pay another fee.
    Commonly they dont pay this fee and skulk away knowing they have been rumbled but in the meanwhile you go about gathering the evidence you need to defend the claim shoudl they not want to drop the matter.

    So, pictures of signage, show us what correspondence you have and esp the NTK they originally sent.

    Dont panic, this is all normal for the less honest parking companies.
    Thank you so much for your message.

    I have done AOS and will send the CRP.

    Will you guys help me put a defence together? How can I post the letters and pictures on here?

    thank you


  13. #13

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    read uploadicon.

    there are 1000's of thread already here with the 2 line defence which will probably be yours too.

    dx

    PLEASE REFRAIN FROM HITTING 'REPLY WITH QUOTE' IF YOU ARE SIMPLY REPLYING TO THE LAST POST IN A THREAD..JUST TYPE!!
    it makes a thread twice as long to scroll through..save data costs
    If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread
    DX
    RIP Martin3030

    Follows
    1
    Following
    0

  14. #14

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Can you please read things very carefully, you will see that there is already a 2 line defence written for you if it matches your circumstances.
    also it is a request for documents under CPR 31.14 so get it right or they will have reason to ignoreicon you and you wont be able to point out their faults later, such as the failure to send a compliant lbaicon


  15. #15
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Sep 2018

    Posts
    14

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Hi Guys,
    here's my first stab at the defence. I need to submit this by 20th Oct so would love some feedback.
    thanks for all your help so far


    IN THE county courticon
    Claim No.: #########

    Between

    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
    (Claimant)

    -and-


    ##################
    (Defendant)

    _________________________ _________________________ _______________________

    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    _________________________ _________________________ _______________________


    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. It is admitted that the defendant, Mr ##########, residing at ############## at the time of the alleged infringement is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration marked ######## which is the subject of these proceedings
    .
    2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    3. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right. Further, the defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendmenticon could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter

    4. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")

    4.1 Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    4.1.1 There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    4.1.2 That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    4.1.3 It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    5. The defendant wrote to the claimant's solicitors on 25th September 2018 with a CPR 31.14 request. The claimant has failed to show locus standi by way of an assignment by the landowner to them to enter into contracts and to make civil claims in their own name. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Car Park Management Ltd, and no proof has been provided.
    5.1 In the CPR 31.14 request, the defendant asked for:
    5.1.1 Full particulars of the parking charges
    5.1.2 Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management Ltd
    5.1.3 A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park Management Ltd had their authority.
    5.1.4 Proof of signage and planning permission for signage
    The claimant solicitor has not responded with any of the above information. As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.
    5.2. The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

    6. As 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).
    6.1 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;
    “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.”

    6.2 UK Car Park Management Ltd 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.
    6.3 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.
    6.4 The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    6.5 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, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

    7. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and which did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) which applied to VCS at the time.

    If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because:
    7.1 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    7.2 The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    7.3 At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    7.4 The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    7.5. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    7.6 There is contradicting signage within the same car park which is placed in a more prominent and readable format.
    7.7 It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collectionicon additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

    8. The Claimant has provided no evidence the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting / giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.
    8.1 It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 9.2.A as the claimant has not provided any evidence of the period of parking to which the notice relates
    8.2 It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 9.5 as the Notice to Keeper was issued on the 10th July 2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.
    ‘5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.’

    9. 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 £5000’,
    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 ”
    9.1 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.’
    9.2 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient 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.
    9.3 I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
    9.4 I suggest that parking companies using the small claimsicon track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.
    9.5 The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
    9.5.1 The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    9.5.2 The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
    9.5.3 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.
    9.5.4 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.
    9.6 The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated 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.
    9.6.1 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.
    9.6.2 The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    9.6.3 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.

    10. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated. 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.
    10.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    10.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    10.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    10.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the small claimsicon Court.
    10.5 It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

    11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    12. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    13. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

    14. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    15. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

    16. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



    ………………………………………………………. ………………………
    (Defendant) (Date)


  16. #16

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    forget it far too much waffle

    as in EB's last post before your defence

    Can you please read things very carefully, you will see that there is already a 2 line defence written for you

    don't mention things [yet] that they don't [await ws time]

    the 2/3 lines defence is available in 100's of like PPC claimformicon threads here already

    PLEASE REFRAIN FROM HITTING 'REPLY WITH QUOTE' IF YOU ARE SIMPLY REPLYING TO THE LAST POST IN A THREAD..JUST TYPE!!
    it makes a thread twice as long to scroll through..save data costs
    If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread
    DX
    RIP Martin3030

    Follows
    1
    Following
    0

  17. #17

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    this defence is straight out iof some other webs ites book on old and failing defences.
    Anything that starts " it is admitted" gives this away.


    IF and WHEN this actually gets to a heairng you will be able to write your own book on the points you wish to raise, at the moemnt you just want to indicate the outline of your defence so my suggestion of
    "no contract offerd at the time so no cause for action can hav arisen

    no kkeper liability so no cause for action agaist the defendant
    the claimant has failed to show locus standi so the defendant does not belive they have a right to bring an action against anyone.




    That is enoigh. File the rest for picking apart later if it is needed. Let them do all the running if they want to lose money


  18. #18
    Basic Account Holder
    Do you record your calls?
    You'll regret it if you don't.




    Follow Real_CAG on Twitter
    Cagger since : Sep 2018

    Posts
    14

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    Hi all,
    thanks for the valuable feedback as ever, I realised I went over the top at this stage. I was following other existing defence templates from MSE.
    Here's a shorter version as per to your feedback:

    IN THE county courticon BUSINESS CENTRE
    Claim No.: #########

    Between

    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED
    (Claimant)

    -and-


    #############
    (Defendant)

    _________________________ _________________________ _______________________

    DEFENCE
    _________________________ _________________________ _______________________


    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. The defendant, Mr #########, residing at ############, at the time of the alleged infringement is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration marked ######## which is the subject of these proceedings.
    2. It is denied that any 'parking chargesicon’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.
    3. No enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen.
    4. No keeper liability so no cause for action against the defendant
    5. The claimant has failed to show locus standi so the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone.

    Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.



    …………………………………………………… …. ………………………
    (Defendant) (Date)


  19. #19

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    IT IS NOT A STATEMENT OF TRUTH, YOU ARE MONTHS AWAY FROM THAT STAGE. This is clearly where things are getting confused. That is the end line of your Witness Statement, not the outline defence on the acknowledgement.

    Just write the 3 lines and nothing else. Do it online so you arent tempted to scribble pages of unnecessary waffle.
    If you want to use the 5 points you have chosen scrap point 1 as it is stating the bleedin obvious and so unnecessary. and the say point 2 but not as a bullet point, you then use point 3 and start with "because" then point 5 and finally point 4 so it flows logically



    In short use common english


  20. #20

    Default Re: UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

    just for clarification your defence is not due till/by Friday at 4pm.
    hold off for now get it right first!

    you file it via the MCOL website as you did the AOS

    PLEASE REFRAIN FROM HITTING 'REPLY WITH QUOTE' IF YOU ARE SIMPLY REPLYING TO THE LAST POST IN A THREAD..JUST TYPE!!
    it makes a thread twice as long to scroll through..save data costs
    If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread
    DX
    RIP Martin3030

    Follows
    1
    Following
    0

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE
We use cookies to personalise content and ads and to provide social media features. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners. See details