Can't recall whether the attendant was standing at the entrance or in the car park office that particular day. Had HX stuck a PCN to the screen rather than sneaking it through the post a week or so later, the day would have been a bit more memorable and I would still have the ticket.

The attendant generally stands a few car lengths inside the entrance, or is in the office which is a few yards from his normal standing position. Traffic entering the car park is visible from the office door.

There is a "stop here to pay" sign next to where he normally stands.

I suspect you (shamrocker) are trying to ascertain if there is a possibility of entering the car park without paying - I guess it could be argued that it is.

However I would argue that it would less feasible to enter the car park without paying AND without being noticed by the attendant - presumably the attendant would report any vehicle which had attempted this. All presumption and supposition, I know, because I have never attempted to park without paying. Would any sane individual go through all this aggro for the sake of saving four quid?

Regards

--skeet23

Hi Skeet

No, I was trying to gain a clearer picture on there being any signs between the entrance to the land and the point of paying the attendant - i.e. "Here are the terms. Proceed and pay the attendant if you accept them".

The signage beyond that point would be irrelevant to my mind.

Actually, another point I would make is the opposite of what you suspect - this being that there cannot be any doubt about payment having being made, due to the attendant's position close to the entrance. They seem to accept that the ticket itself was valid within their appeal to your response anyway - therefore, why the need to have it on display? It's then just a case of determining whether you were contractually bound to ensure the ticket needed to face upwards, which doesn't appear to be the case.

A ticket was displayed so if no "express" written condition on signage as to it's orientation on a dash or windsscreen they are knackered, you paid end of.

signage doesnt matter any more, you saw the attendant and he didnt specify anything to you. You have an INDIVIDUAL contract with the bloke on the gate and that trumps the signs.

What I would do is pitch up one day and take piccies of him in his normal position. A couple so he cant see you and then go right up to the kiosk and snap away so it is obvious that you are up to something. If he asks what you are doing tell him you are from the council and investigating something you cant tell him about.

Good day, Everyone.

The dreaded Gladstone's "Letter Before Claim" arrived today, informing me that £160 is now "owed". If it is not paid they "are instructed to commence legal proceesings" and their client "is satisfied that it has evidence to support this claim and, if necessary, will rely on this evidence in court".

I'm sure that this is just a template letter and I am happy to upload redacted images if requested.

In the mean time ... how should I proceed?

Apparently I have 30 days to pay up or reply ...

Regards

--skeet23

you must reply to an LBA

just send them our usual snotty insulting letter

on many like letter of/before claim threads here already

you tell them that any debt is denied, especially one with unlawful amounts added to it. You agreed terms with the bloke on the gate and that trumps the signage and that is so poor it doesnt create a condition that would result in you owing them anything anyway. If HXP want to try their luck at court then you arent worried and will be happy to see their faces after they have been Gladstoned!

If you dont know what this menas you should read the parking prankster's blog. they certainly know what it means and that is the point

Oh if only Gladdys could be caught on Champerty & Maintenance. Thry always seem to advise the PPC to do court, but get paid win lose or withdraw.

that is perfectly OK as long as they dont take over the running of the claimfor their own ends or profit when their client has no interest in the matter. Now there is a fine line between doing things on a contingency fee or conditional fee basis and Champerty but as we have never seen the contracts between Gladdys and thei clients around this it would be improper to suggest that they would stoop so low as to break the law in this respect when there are so many other laws to break they can choose from.

Well, another month and another letter from gladstones.

This time they "note that I have not raised any issues in dispute" (my last correspondance was the suggested snotty reply above) and bang on that it's not in their clients interests to waive this charge (shocker!) and that despite the fact I "have paid parking pursuant to the contract (the parking signs) I needed to ensure the ticket was displayed" etc etc.

I assume this le1tter does not justify a response, wasting a stamp or wasting a lunch hour walking to the post office ?

--skeet23

they are saying that "you are right but we are going to ignore that particulat fly in our ointment and hope that you still pay up because we have wasted a lot of time telling lies to you and that has cost us money"

Ignore and if they persuade their client to waste even more time and money on this you can clobber them with an unreasonable conduct costs order. that letter is proof they know their claims are duff

Hi Everyone

Today's mail contained a "claim form" and a "response pack" from the County Court Business Centre. It looks legit.

I know I've seen guidance for filling these forms on this forum, but I can't seem to find anything at present ... can anyone point me at a good post?

I still intend to dispute their claim ... and I don't want to make any mistakes (e.g. case heard just on the "evidence").

Should I just fill in the "defence and counterclaim" form ... including the "defence"?

I assume the "defence" in this case needs only to be a bullet list?

The claim form also states I can respond to this claim on line - is it better to reply using the forms (i.e. a paper trail) or on-line?

Best Regards,

-- skeet23

please complete this:

topic title updated

use the online version, it is easy to set up an account and currently the courts service are running 2 versions so if you dont have a government gateway account you use the simpler one.

For the moment you just tick the box saying you intend to defend in full.

That gives you another fortnight to submit your outline defence and

also send Gladstones a CPR 31.14 request for documents and ask for sight of their contract with the landlord that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name and for a copy of the planning permission granted for both their cameras and equipment and their signage at the site.

Give them 14 days to respond and when they dont you include their failure to produce said documents in your defence.

This is gone into on quite a few threads

Thanks, @dx100uk, answers to questions below:

Name of the Claimant: HX Car Park Management Limited

claimants Solicitors: Gladstones Solicitors Limited

Date of issue – 7th May 2019

Date of issue 7/5/19

date to acknowledge) = 25/5/19

date to submit defence = 7/6/19 

What is the claim for –

1.The driver of the vehicle with registration XX99XXX (the 'Vehicle') parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the 'Contract') at St Georges Car Park Fitzwilliam Street, on 08/10/2018 thus incurring the parking charge (the 'PCN').

2.The driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so.

3.The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as driver/keeper of the Vehicle.

4.Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

5.THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN,

£60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions,

together with statutory interest of £5.51 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day.

What is the value of the claim? £240.51

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 ? Parking company

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? N/A

Relating to the claim particulars ... how can they state that "the driver ... agreed to pay the PCN ... yet failed to do so" when they made ABSOLUTELY NO EFFORT to communicate with the driver and instead went directly after the keeper ???

That is a plainly misleading statement.

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
.
 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 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]

no need to sign anything
.
you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.
you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]
 

……………..

please note your revised defence filing date .

they are saying the driver agreed to the terms of the contract offered by their signage but have conflated this in the hope that you dont bring this to the judge's attention.

Again, the point about the attendant is critical here as anythig said between the driver and them is the contract, not the signs.

Still you will make these points forcefully in the near future.

Once you have acknowledged the claim online you fire off a CPR31.14 request for documents to Gladstones asking for sight of the contract between their clinet and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name. (HXCP have only been in business a short while but have fallen down on this already.)

you also ask for sight of the planning permissions for their signage and equipment at the site. (as it is a business they would need PP for a chair if it is there permanently, let alone a kiosk.)

Give them 14 days to respond as that is lomng enough but allows you to use a non response against them.

coem back and tell us when you ahve done tose things

Thanks, @ericsbrother, @dx100uk

I acknowledged the claim on-line on 14th, and sent a CPR31.14 request (based on the template linked in post #43) on the following day.

I sent it signed-for and have proof it was delivered on the 16th.

I will update this thread if they respond.

Best Regards

-- skeet23

do NOT miss your defence filing date no matter what does/doesn't happen

dx

if they dont respond you can say in your defence that you do not believe they have the permissions because they have failed to produce them and thus have no locus standi.

Hi All. Filing date is approaching ... how do I do this on line.

Anyway ... here is my defence ... I'd be grateful for any advice or comment.

Defence Submission

1.The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5.

1.1 The claim particulars fail to specify how the terms of parking were breached and fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 by not including a statement of the facts on which the claimant relies, only referring to parking charges incurred with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence; are not clear and concise as is required by CPR Part 16.4 1(a).

1.2 The Claimant and their solicitor are known to be a serial litigants and issuer of speculative claims, using “template” particulars of claim, with no due diligence.

2 The Defendant appealed the postal Parking Charge Notice on the 24th October 2018 explaining what had happened.
2.1 The Defendant was unable to provide a copy of the actual ticket for that day as it had been thrown away, however it was pointed out that the Claimants PCN was predatory and opportunistic:
2.1.1 The car park uses a different coloured ticket each day and the images on the Claimants PCN showed the correct colour of ticket for that day, a fact which could easily have been checked had the Claimant's operator acted with due diligence.
2.1.2 The ticket had been purchased from the attendant at the car park, again offering an easy means to check its validity, had the Claimants operator acted with due diligence.
2.1.3 The ticket does not display or make any reference to other terms and conditions
2.1.4 No loss had been suffered by the owners of the car park hence no further charge was due to be paid
2.1.5 No notice was attached to the vehicle contrary to section 2.1 of the IPC code of practice (notice to driver) and this is an underhand and predatory tactic contrary to section 14.1 of the IPC code of practice
2.1.6 The signage is confusing, instructing drivers to "park in marked bays". Since this car park is situated on rough ground without a single marked bay, this cannot form a contract on which the Claimant's case is based.

2.2. The appeal was received by the Claimant on 30th and rejected on the same day.

2.3 A further appeal to the IPC was lodged on-line and was also rejected. The IPC are also known to be a kangaroo court, hidden behind PO boxes, changes of name and service addresses and also owned by the directors of the Claimant's solicitors.

2.4 "Final Demand" received on 19th December, further inflating the alleged debt by £25.

2.5 It is clear from the above that the Claimant's (and their solicitor's) behaviour has been anything but reasonable in this matter.

3. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant has, to this point, refused to name the driver of the vehicle. However there seems little point in concealing the fact that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the day in question.

The Defendant denies liability for the entire claim and requests the Court to dismiss the claim for the following reasons:

4.1 The Defendant paid the parking fee to the attendant and displayed the ticket in the prescribed manner.

4.2 The Defendant cannot be held responsible for the possibility that a gust of wind (or some other external factor) could have caused the ticket to become dislodged.

4.3 The tickets issued by the attendant are not self adhesive or provide any other means by which they should be affixed to the vehicle's dashboard or windscreen, other than by the force of gravity. Several similar court cases have been previously dismissed on the basis that it is deemed by the judge to be the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets (e.g. C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot)

5. The Claimant does not dispute the fact that the Defendant purchased a ticket on the day in question. A letter from the Claimant's solicitors on 25th March 2019 accepts that payment was made, but regards it as irrelevant since the alleged debt is for breach of contract. And further inflates the alleged debt to £160.

6. Despite two requests, the second under CPR31.14 on 14th May 2019, the Claimant and their solicitors have failed to establish their right to bring this claim or to enter into contracts on behalf of the landlord and therefore have no locus standi to bring this case. [Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] 1B &S 393, as confirmed by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd.]

7. Despite a request under CPR31.14 on 14th May 2019, the Claimant and their solicitors have also failed to provide any evidence of planning permission granted for their signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007

8. The "Contract" on which the Claimant relies is confusing, in that it specifies that drivers should park in marked bays, although none are provided. This "clause" should render the entire contract null and void.

9. The "Contract" on which the Claimant relies is irrelevant. The Defendant's individual contract is a verbal contract between the Defendant and the car park attendant, and contains no conditions at all.

10. The particulars of the claim contain a mendacious and misleading statement: "The driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so". The Claimant cannot assert that the driver agreed to anything, when their first action was to contact the registered keeper of the vehicle, inviting the keeper to name the driver.

11. Any breach of contract (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is denied) was de minimis since no harm has been done, then no damages for breach contract apply.

12. The Claimant is seeking a penalty and inflated costs. The Claimant seeks £160 plus interest which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty, and therefore unenforceable.

13. The Claimant has claimed a £50 legal representative’s cost on the claim form, despite being well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

14. The Defendant would like to highlight that this is a "pay and display" car park, which does not offer a free period of parking when patronising local stores and that the fee paid for this service covers the entire day. For this reason, the famous "Beavis" case is not applicable.

I request the court strike out this claim 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 the Claimant's solicitor's 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."

Best Regards

-- skeet23

maybe for your witness statement but not for your defence

just file our std 2 or 3 line one.

more is less

dx

@dx100uk Thanks - got a link ?