Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About skeet23

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Well, they don't hang about, do they ! On Monday, Gladdys emailed me (I put my email address on the MCOL site, they must have grabbed it from there) >>>>> Re : Our Client : HX Car Park Management Limited Claim Number: XXXXXXXX We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim. Please find enclosed a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing. This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate. We trust you agree. You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward. Yours sincerely <<<<< Attached to this mail is an N180 Directions Questionnaire. Having scanned through this, I have a concern regarding section D1: At which County Court hearing centre would you prefer the small claims hearing to take place and why? PURSUANT TO PD27 (2.4) SEE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION AND N159. If the Defendant does not consent - Claimant's home court. Is the request for special direction their request to do it "on the papers" ... and does the "Claimant's home court" mean I'm going to have to travel half way across the country to defend myself? Do I need to do anything about this now? Assume it's best to email back and instruct them to (1) not use this email address again and (2) send all further correspondance by post. On Tuesday, a letter from the court arrived stating that they acknowledge receipt of my defence and it will be served on the Claimant and/or their solicitors ... they have 28 days to decide to proceed otherwise he case will be stayed. I assume I don't need to respond to this! Best Regards --skeet23
  2. OK - I get it ... more is less because it restricts your wiggle room later. Would this be sufficiently terse: The Defendant denies that any contract was formed between the Claimant and himself. The Claimant has failed to establish Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act. The Particulars of Claim contain no detail as to the nature of any breach of a contract. The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has locus standi since they have failed to produce any evidence of assignment of rights from the landowner as part of CPR 31.14 request, nor have they produced any evidence of planning permissions for their signage and equipment. It is therefore requested that the claim be struck out under CPR 16.4 --skeet23
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. @ploddertom ... the P&D ticket purchased form the attendant (not the machine) does not state anything regarding orientation … it shows the name and address of car park, date (stamped), Car £4 Van £5, parking at own risk / have a good day and VAT number. So is it reasonable that you pay for and recieve a coloured ticket at the entrance, then have to park up and read two notices - one on a wall and one on a ticket machine - to gain a full understanding of some supposed contract that you are allegedly signing up to ? As you say, they are being totally pedantic, so would it be worth pursuing the argument that one of the "terms" is to park in a marked bay, when there is not a single marked area on this car park .. . therefore they are in breach of their own contract for not providing marked bays ?
  12. Happy New Year, Everyone! As you correctly predicted, the "independent" appeals service dismissed my appeal, stating that everything was done properly ... text pasted below. ------------------------------------------------- "It is important to understand that the adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and the Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles. The guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. The conditions of parking at the location in question are such that drivers must ensure that a valid pay and display ticket is clearly on display at all relevant times. Signage stating these terms exists throughout the site and having viewed images of the site I am satisfied that the Appellant was made reasonably aware of the conditions of parking, particularly as in this case the Appellant obtained a ticket from the attendant at the site. I am satisfied from the evidence provided by the Operator that no valid ticket was properly displayed in the vehicle. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued as no ticket was properly displayed in the vehicle. The Appellant states in their appeal that they purchased a ticket, but the evidence provided means that I am satisfied that no ticket was properly available for inspection at the time the PCN was issued. It appears to be accepted that the ticket obtained blew/fell from the position in which it was placed, coming to rest face down so that the details on the ticket were unavailable for inspection. photographs, taken at the point of issue, show the Appellant’s vehicle without correctly displaying a valid ticket. As stated above, the guidance to this appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. For this reason, I am satisfied that as no ticket was correctly displayed in the vehicle at the time the PCN was issued, as suggested by the Operator, that the prima facie case has been proven. I am satisfied as to the location of the contravention, that the correct vehicle has been identified parked at the time suggested in the images provided and that the correct Appellant is pursued. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that a ticket is purchased and that this ticket is correctly displayed in the vehicle. By allowing the vehicle to be parked without a valid ticket properly displayed, even if mitigating circumstances exist, the Appellant became liable to pay a charge. It is clear from the evidence provided that no ticket was properly available for inspection at the time that the PCN was issued. I note the Appellant may have obtained a ticket however this point is largely irrelevant, as the issue here is that the ticket was not correctly displayed. I note the Appellant's comments however the Operator's code of conduct states that 'Where notification of a parking charge is not affixed to the vehicle or given to the driver at the time of the parking event then you may provide postal notification of the charge to the registered keeper.' On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the charge has been served correctly using the postal system. The Appellant also raises the issue of damages for loss caused. As the Operator does not allege a breach of contract they do not seek damages for loss. In fact they seek payments pursuant to a specific contractual term which I am satisfied was made reasonably clear to the Appellant at the time of parking by way of the signage on site. Demonstrating a genuine pre-estimate of loss is therefore not necessary. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402 Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant, once liability has been established only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. " ---------------------------------------------------------- So if the operator is NOT alleging breach of contract or disputing payment, Whatdoes all this legalese guff mean ??? --skeet23 Oh yes ... and another nice letter from HX demanding £125 within 7 days !!!
  • Create New...