Homeguard/14 Services - Court papers recieved

[Cable_Guy]

It's from Gladstones, not the court directly but is laid out as per court paperwork format. It's a request for further information, and is specific in that it is a list of questions relating to driver details, my reasons for disputing each individual ticket, details of how I declined to provide details at the time of the tickets etc.

Can this information be requested from me as keeper given that all the MTK's were well past service date requirements?

[dw190]

It's from Gladstones, not the court directly but is laid out as per court paperwork format. It's a request for further information, and is specific in that it is a list of questions relating to driver details, my reasons for disputing each individual ticket, details of how I declined to provide details at the time of the tickets etc.

Can this information be requested from me as keeper given that all the MTK's were well past service date requirements?

 

I'm 99% sure that any request for further information should be made on an application to the Court. (They may just be requesting casually in the hope you will give driver details) Insured drivers have nothing to do with it other than a fishing excercise.

 

If your vehicle is insured any driver the list could be what's contained in the whole the DVLA's database of Drivers.

 

If it relates to information from some time ago it may not be in you power to give it accurately.

[ericsbrother]

You can ignore these attempts from Gladstones to get you to admit that you were the driver and hence liable for any charge. They are flying a kite and they know it. As for a statement of truth, that would apply to a witness, not to yourself, although it is common to make a written statement of truth.

If Gladstones really believe that they have a case they can apply for a "Norwich Pharmacal Order" under CPR part 18. This allows someone who has been disadvantaged by a third party's actions and the defendant has the information but refuses to give it. Now, as they are suing you the order would be refused as the third party is not disadvantaging them. They just havent got the procedures right and they know it so are hoping you will either admit being the driver or change your defence to make it possible for them to be successful.

Ignore them unless they apply for a court order to force you to name the driver and that is unlikely to be successful and will cost them a fortune.

[Ganymede]

It's from Gladstones, not the court directly but is laid out as per court paperwork format. It's a request for further information, and is specific in that it is a list of questions relating to driver details, my reasons for disputing each individual ticket, details of how I declined to provide details at the time of the tickets etc.

Can this information be requested from me as keeper given that all the MTK's were well past service date requirements?

 

 

 

It is supposed to be set out in an official Court format if it is a CPR Part 18 request.

[Ganymede]

You can ignore these attempts from Gladstones to get you to admit that you were the driver and hence liable for any charge. They are flying a kite and they know it. As for a statement of truth, that would apply to a witness, not to yourself, although it is common to make a written statement of truth.

If Gladstones really believe that they have a case they can apply for a "Norwich Pharmacal Order" under CPR part 18. This allows someone who has been disadvantaged by a third party's actions and the defendant has the information but refuses to give it. Now, as they are suing you the order would be refused as the third party is not disadvantaging them. They just havent got the procedures right and they know it so are hoping you will either admit being the driver or change your defence to make it possible for them to be successful.

Ignore them unless they apply for a court order to force you to name the driver and that is unlikely to be successful and will cost them a fortune.

 

 

 

Not sure what you mean about witnesses because a Defence absolutely must be signed with a Statement of Truth there is no maybe about it.

[Cable_Guy]

I'm 99% sure that any request for further information should be made on an application to the Court. (They may just be requesting casually in the hope you will give driver details) Insured drivers have nothing to do with it other than a fishing excercise.

 

If your vehicle is insured any driver the list could be what's contained in the whole the DVLA's database of Drivers.

 

If it relates to information from some time ago it may not be in you power to give it accurately.

 

I have not owned the vehicle in question for some fourteen months,

and as such I don't have policy documents relating to it's insurance anyway.

 

Given that the tickets were issued in 2012, it's a bit of an ask to expect me to remember who was driving on a given date and time anyway.

 

Can I respond to the request but decline to give details based on the amount of time passed,

and the fact that since it's not a court directed order means I am not obliged to give them any further information anyway?

 

I don't want to do anything that will prejudice my defence

 

but at the same time I don't want really want to give Gladstones any information beyond what is in my defence statement

[Ganymede]

The Part 18 procedure is right as the OP is the Defendant and I don't think the questions are unreason but the OP can object in writing to them under CPR PD 18 paragraph 4.1.

 

If you don't answer the Claimant can apply to Court to enforce their request.

 

I wouldn't be so confident of the Claimant failing in an application under CPR 18. It is a request for further information and not "disclosure" under CPR 31.

 

Like I said, the OP needs to carefully read CPR 18 and the associated Practice Direction before ignoring the Claimant's request for information.

[Ganymede]

I have not owned the vehicle in question for some fourteen months, and as such I don't have policy documents relating to it's insurance anyway. Given that the tickets were issued in 2012, it's a bit of an ask to expect me to remember who was driving on a given date and time anyway. Can I respond to the request but decline to give details based on the amount of time passed, and the fact that since it's not a court directed order means I am not obliged to give them any further information anyway? I don't want to do anything that will prejudice my defence but at the same time I don't want really want to give Gladstones any information beyond what is in my defence statement

 

 

 

Were you the driver or not? I'm not sure the Court will buy you can't remember if it's your car and only you have ever been insured to drive it.

 

You will have to expand on your Defence in great detail when you file your witness statement later on so where is the prejudice?

 

Also make sure you amend your Defence to include a Statement of Truth otherwise the Court may strike it out.

[Cable_Guy]

Were you the driver or not? I'm not sure the Court will buy you can't remember if it's your car and only you have ever been insured to drive it.

 

You will have to expand on your Defence in great detail when you file your witness statement later on so where is the prejudice?

 

Also make sure you amend your Defence to include a Statement of Truth otherwise the Court may strike it out.

 

It was my vehicle but there were three other people that had use of it at around the time of the tickets,

on a third party cover basis on their own policies and

 

I wouldn't be able to determine two years after the event exactly who was using it on a particular date and time..

.. It's not just being obstructive, I genuinely wouldn't have a clue.

 

I think I'll have a look at the CPR guidance as mentioned above

and respond that I am unable to recall the specifics due to the period of time that has passed.

 

Starting to do my head in now lol

 

I must admit I thought they would drop it once it was clear I wasn't going to back down

[Ganymede]

In that case make sure you include that in your witness statement and hope the Judge believes you on the day in Court.

 

How did you become aware of the tickets again? Were they stuck to the windscreen?

[ericsbrother]

Have you requested a copy of the contract between the landowner and the parking co? If they have one signed by the managemnt company then they have no right to claim anything as the managment co do not have the right to make contracts that impinge upon your rights as occupier. the parking scheme is a convenience not a law

[esmerobbo]

Gladstones are on a fishing trip, you have no need to tell them who was driving, or the status of your insurance or the insurance of anyone else who may have driven your vehicle. However saying that if its your address and the van is registered to that address a judge may in all likelihood find on the balance of probabilities that you were the driver.

 

Unfortunately at county court level that's all that is needed.

 

Not being the driver is only a cast iron defence if you can 100% prove it wasn't you. There are much stronger arguments to use in your defence.

 

On the other hand it would be interesting to know what Gladstones would do if you named a driver, as they are not using POFA they would have no action against you.

 

As ericsbrother has said the contract is the starting point, they always either fail to produce one, supply a witness statement saying one exists or produce one that has been so redacted that its senseless.

 

Have you had anyone look over your defence?

[Cable_Guy]

They were all windscreen tickets

[Cable_Guy]

Gladstones are on a fishing trip, you have no need to tell them who was driving, or the status of your insurance or the insurance of anyone else who may have driven your vehicle. However saying that if its your address and the van is registered to that address a judge may in all likelihood find on the balance of probabilities that you were the driver.

 

Unfortunately at county court level that's all that is needed.

 

Not being the driver is only a cast iron defence if you can 100% prove it wasn't you. There are much stronger arguments to use in your defence.

 

On the other hand it would be interesting to know what Gladstones would do if you named a driver, as they are not using POFA they would have no action against you.

 

As ericsbrother has said the contract is the starting point, they always either fail to produce one, supply a witness statement saying one exists or produce one that has been so redacted that its senseless.

 

Have you had anyone look over your defence?

 

No, I've posted the details here but beyond that it's just been me, myself and I.

 

I did request proof of homeguards right of litigation on behalf of the landowner

and they supplied a copy of something from the estate management company

that appeared to give them power to act as they see fit on behalf of Linden homes,

 

didn't look like a contract though now you mention it so

 

I'll request a copy of that I think. I

 

normally have a few vehicles registered to me at my home address.

 

... Currently 4 and probably a similar amount at the time so the vehicle in question wouldn't

have been my only one being used then.

[Ganymede]

They were all windscreen tickets

 

 

 

So you know it was you because you picked them all off your windscreen?

 

I'm sorry to say but as has been mentioned it is very likely a judge will find on the balance of probabilities that you were the driver.

[ericsbrother]

I disagree,

 

if they havent stuck to the very specific times laid out in the PoFA then they cannot claim against the keeper

and it is as the keeper they are having the OP to court.

 

If the claim was within time and the argumant was whether or not the OP was the driver at the time

then the judge could very well make that decision,

but it isnt the case and there is the statute law to refer to.

 

It is for the parking company to prove that

(a) a debt exists and

(b) the OP is the debtor.

 

They appear to fail on both points.

 

Lastly there is still some question about their rights to issue proceedings in the first place

as it has not been made clear whether there is a contract between the freeholder/occupier

and the parking company that entitles them to claim in their name.

 

I would bet that the contract was signed by the development managemnt co

and that doesnt count, a bit like my estate agent claiming fom me for not selling my house to someone they choose.

[esmerobbo]

Going by what Gladstones are asking for I would guess they know they are on a sticky wicket for any claim against the keeper under POFA.

 

If they did decide to have a punt against the keeper, and ask a Judge to decide if in all probabilities the keeper was the driver, then they could have a chance. If it was one PCN it would be different but multiples are a different case, even though it could be multiple drivers.

 

However this is a side issue as ericsbrother says above they have to prove the points ericsbrother has made, these should be the basis of your defence.

[ericsbrother]

I would make it very clear their claim against you as RK is not a lawful one

and let them PROVE who was driving.

 

IF they thnk that you were the driver then they have to start a new legal action against you in that capacity.

 

you can then argue that you werent and that too much time has passed for any certaintly on their part,

despite any claim that in balance of probability it was.

 

They might win a claim on balance of probability if they can prove that any claim is procedually correct

but a second attack on you would need to have overwhelming proof or be struck out as vexatious

[Cable_Guy]

I would make it very clear their claim against you as RK is not a lawful aone and let them PROVE who was driving. IF they thnk that you were the driver then they have to start a new legal action against you in that capacity. you can then argue that you werent and that too much time has passed for any certaintly on their part, despite any claim that in balance of probability it was. They might win a claim on balance of probability if they can prove that any claim is procedually correct but a second attack on you would need to have overwhelming proof or be struck out as vexatious

 

This is pretty much my feeling on it. I'll respond to their request for more information with something along the lines of the above, add the statement of truth to my defence since they've had a moan about that and see what they respond with.

[ericsbrother]

They are desparate to get you to admit being the driver and then they have an outside chance of turning their argumants towards this fact.

 

I would avoid communicating directly with them at all.

 

If they really want to have a go at the driver then they have to go back to the court process

and get an order for discovery but you can of course challenge that for procedural impropriety

(and anyway what documantation would you possess to show who was driving at the time?).

 

If you want to respond just point out that they are claiming against the registered keeper and you are defending as that person.

 

Dont add to that at all in a response to them,

save anything else you have for your own bundle

and let them have it at exchange time.

[Cable_Guy]

Ok so little update lol

 

I filed my response to the request for information,

saying that I would not be providing anything further without a court order.

 

Received more paperwork from Gladstones,

which contains some case law that argues that the debt is a fee for parking

and does not fall within the normal contract law

 

and also included a print out of this thread in it's entirety,

which is being submitted as evidence of my liability for the alleged debt.

 

I can't wait for this to actually get to court now....It's going to be interesting!

 

I lost my job not long ago so If I lose I hope the fiver a month

they'll get from my JSA is worth all the effort they're putting into this lol

[ericsbrother]

so they are suing you for a debt that falls outside the law?

 

how can they claim then?

 

If it is a fee for parking then you need to ask them how much does it cost to park for say 1 minite less or more than the time your vehicle was there.

 

Dont forget to get your copy of the contract between landlord and parking so that specifically allows the parking co to make legal claims in their own name.

 

No contract with LL then no contract can be formed with motorist as it will be an unfair contract

to just put up signs on someone else's property ans expect it to be legal.

 

You need for them to put "strict proof" of their claim.

 

You need to make sure that you have digested all of the relevant part of the PoFA a

nd make sure that you get the point across about the requirements for sticking to the timetable otherwise no liability.

Y

[Cable_Guy]

so they are suing you for a debt that falls outside the law?

 

how can they claim then?

 

If it is a fee for parking then you need to ask them how much does it cost to park for say 1 minite less or more than the time your vehicle was there.

 

Dont forget to get your copy of the contract between landlord and parking so that specifically allows the parking co to make legal claims in their own name.

 

No contract with LL then no contract can be formed with motorist as it will be an unfair contract

to just put up signs on someone else's property ans expect it to be legal.

 

You need for them to put "strict proof" of their claim.

 

You need to make sure that you have digested all of the relevant part of the PoFA a

nd make sure that you get the point across about the requirements for sticking to the timetable otherwise no liability.

Y

 

Can I request a copy of the contract directly from Gladstones or do I have to go via the court?

 

I think the contract is with the estate management company rather than the landlord,

judging by the letter from the estate management company that has been included in the claim paperwork.

 

Gladstones are looking to have my defence struck out on the grounds

that they allege that I was the driver and that I am trying to avoid responsibility for paying.

 

They're apparently applying to the court for an order to compel me to give them driver details though..

.. I'm somewhat confused.

 

They've sidestepped the issue of the notice to keepers being out of time

and seem to be pushing for the court to decide this in their favour

based on some dubious case law examples,

and the false assertion that vehicles registered to me have been creating a nuisance.

[ericsbrother]

NO,

you demand it from the parking company as part of your evidential requirements.

 

They cannot refuse or you can complain to the court that they have refused to show any evidence of the contract.

 

That is what "strict proof" esentially menas,

they have to show that there is such a contract and they wont like that.

 

Ignore Gladstones,

they cannot ask the court to compel you to reveal the driver withour going to the high court

and they arent going to pay for that and it is in breach of the PoFA.

 

They are winding you up and hoping you will admit liability

as they know that they cannot sue you as the keeper

and their current action is doomed to fail.

 

Again, the nuisance bit requires a separate action and doesnt win them any money.

 

That one will cost them about 8 grand to pursue so again they are hoping you dont know this.

[Old Snowy]

I have only just had my attention drawn to this thread and so I apologise in advance if I end up asking questions that have already been addressed. I have scan read things and may well have missed some of the finer detail.

 

As I see it Gladstones are alleging that the OP has, effectively, invoked a number of contractual charges on the estate where he resides. In other words they are asserting that each of the charges 14 Services have attempted to collect are charges due in line with the contract he has entered into - i.e. they are not pre-estimates of loss fro breaches of contracts.

 

Do we have any photos of the signs? The increasing prevalence of the "contractual charge" model is a product of the appearance of the IPC Ltd and as the incidents pre-date their being granted ATA status I suspects that the signs will make it clear that the sums are indeed in respect of breaches of contract.

 

In general terms if parking is extended to holders of permits and it excludes all others then what fool is going to readily agree to pay £100 for the privilege of staying there? Then there is the issue of whether it is possible on the one hand to offer a contract in respect of which conduct is excluded with the other.

 

Gladstones are trying it on I suggest.