Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by skeet23

  1. Hi Everyone, Well, they (gladdys) finally paid up ... and only one day after the "due" date. Thanks again for all of your help. I've made a donation ... keep up the good work. Best Regards, --skeet23.
  2. Hi All, Well - I had my day in court. No show from Gladstones. The Judge stated that he was "aware" of this car park and the "cloakroom tickets" that they issue. He thought some of my arguments were legally tenuous (my words, not his) but he accepted the "de minimis" argument, in that a ticket was purchased and displayed in good faith, and that in this respect, the terms and conditions had been met. The claim was thrown out and he awarded my incidental costs plus loss of earnings. I had chanced my arm and asked for 10 hours of "litigant in person" research costs but the Judge told me that this was not applicable to the small claims court. Still, a win is a win! When those nice people at Gladstones and HX send me a cheque, I will be making a donation to the CAG. My thanks to everyone on this forum for the help and support I have received. Best Regards --skeet23
  3. Evening All! I've amended to reflect @brassnecked's comments (as per post #86, simply changed "mitigating circumstances" to "facts"). Everyone keeps suggesting @ericsbrother should give it the once-over but time is running short - I'm out of the country for a week from tomorrow morning, and my return will fall inside the 14 day period that the WS must be served - i.e. too late! I don't want this to sound like an ultimatum, but if EB hasn't replied by mid morning tomorrow, I am going to have to send it with or without his blessing. Best Regards, --skeet23
  4. Hi All. I've made the suggested changes. Posting for a final review as I need to print and mail it on Friday. Best Regards, --skeet23skeet23_witness_statement_03.pdf
  5. Thanks, @brassnecked. Understood. I was using "mitigation" in the way we use it in my profession ... for example, in an IT project we would try to "mitigate" risk (i.e. take actions to alleviate it or reduce its impact) ... I was unaware that in a legal context it would imply "I am guilty but please be lenient because ...". Would "Mitigating Factors" be a better title ... as I mentioned in post #82, I am trying to convey how reasonably I have behaved, and how unreasonable the claimant's behaviour has been, and how trivial the "transgression" really is, leading to the "de minimis" conclusion. Best Regards, --skeet23
  6. Thanks, @FTMDave for your feedback, I will take your points on board. I was using the title "Mitigation" in an attempt to convey how reasonably I have behaved, and how stubborn and overzealous (i.e. unreasonable) the claimant and their solicitors are. Any suggestions for a more appropriate title ? Cheers --skeet23
  7. Thanks for your comments ... attaching an updated WS. I'd appreciate any further feedabck etc ... I need to file this by the end of the week. Regards --skeet23 skeet23_witness_statement_02.pdf
  8. Hmmm. Or indeed any evidence the contract was still in force in October 2018 ? Is it worth mentioning this in my witness statement ? --skeet23
  9. Hi, All. Thanks for your comments. Attached is the remainder of "their" WS ... and the first draft of mine. I look forward to your feedback. Regards, --skeet23 WS-Redacted_2.pdf skeet23_witness_statement_01.pdf
  10. Here's the text portion of the claimant's witness statement. I will upload the remainder of it soon (it's all images inside the PDF and will take a bit of work to extract and redact)- but in summary it will contain: * The contract between the landowner and claimant * Images of the payment machine and signage (IMPORTANT - these are different from the pictures I have taken !) * Site map showing position of signage * Audit log from "zat park" roboclaims software --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Original NTK Letter * Final Demand Letter * Some postal logs * My "Appeal" letter * Appeal Rejection Letter * Parking Whitelist * Pictures of the vehicle * Letter before Claim I don't intend to upload the NTK and anything below that (unless someone asks) ... it's either already on this thread, or, in my view, not really relevant. Also, the mail from gladdys contained this: The assumption is that our Client is not attending the hearing and therefore we kindly request this notice be treated as a notice pursuant to CPR 27.9. What does this mean ? Is it am attempt to get an "on the papers" hearing ? Thanks --skeet23 WS-Redacted.pdf
  11. A bit of an update: N180 received and returned to court on 10th July as per post #64. (August) Received hearing date ... hearing would have been during my holiday abroad. (August) Wrote to court, stating that hearing was during the "unavailable dates" I had filled on the N180 (September) Court vacated original hearing date and re-listed for a new date. Here's the good bit ... our friends in Knutsford possibly have not twigged this ... because today, via EMAIL (despite having explicitly told them to serve documents by POST), I received their witness statement. Guess it's lucky that I screwed up blocking their domain ! Anyway, I'll get my witness statement finished off in the next couple of days. What's the best way of getting it to you guys for review without tipping off the opposition ? (Similarly I guess I can share their w/s) Best Regards --skeet23
  12. @dx100uk, @brassnecked Yes. As per the advice on other threads, gladdies copy did NOT have my email address, phone number or signature. They have already tried their email trick (see posts #56-62) and have been told to use (royal) mail for service of documents and that future emails will be blocked. --skeet23
  13. Hello, All. Just a quick update - I received the N180 last week and posted it today. Stated "No" to mediation (since gladstones already have already declined mediation) and that I wanted a hearing in my local court. I guess now is the time to start working on a proper witness statement - they are not going to back down now, are they ? Any suggestions or reccommended templates or outlines gratefully received. --skeet23
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  • Create New...