PPM /gladstones windscreen PCN - high St Slough

[petroholic]

Ok was worth checking do I have to wait a little while now before submitting a defence?

 

Thanks

[dx100uk]

I would use the time till 4pm Fri 22nd wisely

But yes there is no rush to file

[petroholic]

thanks dx100uk. Just sent you a PM if you would be kind enough to advise

[petroholic]

Hi,

Based on the below. Is there anything I should add in regards to my claim in specific? I have mentioned the fact I did not receive a NTK and the fact the £150 requested from Gladstone is a ridiculous claim.

Thanks

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the owner of (Vehicle registration removed).

 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant parked in 271-279 High Street, Slough at the times mentioned in the Particulars OR the Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times he was parked in 271-279 High Street, Slough as he has no recollection of this. The Claimant is put to proof of the same.

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to keeper) sent to the registered owner. This notice was not sent to the Defendant from the Claimant, thus making any claim null and void.

 

4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

5. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £150 is an unenforceable penalty clause. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant; © the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on the Claimant's signs.

 

6. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £150 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the Regulations being a term "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation". The term was not individually negotiated and causes a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers are legitimately using the carpark for its designated purpose.

 

7. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all."

[ericsbrother]

point 1,

you are the keeper of the vehicle, not the owner.

There is a difference and they are suing you as the keeper or driver, they havent really said which.

 

Unless you have already told them you were driving you should scratch point 2

as it makes point 3 redundant and essentially wrong as a statement.

 

 

You should simply state that the NTK wasnt in time to create a keeper liability

and thus they have no basis of claim against you.

 

for point 3

it is not for you to deny but to state that they didnt comply.

 

with point 4

are you sure that there isnt an assignment of the rights by the landowner?

You should have already demanded sight of the contract between them and LL under a CPR 31.2 nad 31.14.

 

If they havent responded then you assert that they dont ahve the authority as they failed to produce such a contract.

 

the level of damages is now largely redundant thanks to the Beavis decision.

Edited July 4, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[petroholic]

They are not aware of the drivers identity as I did not recieve the NTK

- this is really frustrating as it would have been a hell of a lot easier if I did.

 

 

So something like this would be appropriate?

 

It is informed to you that the Claimant has not complied with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

 

Under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,

it states there should be a NTK (notice to keeper) sent to the registered owner.

The defendant did not receive this notice thus there is no basis of claim against the Defendant.

 

I have not contacted the Parking firm because of the fact I had received nothing until Gladstone & then the court letter.

I have made my choice to defend all the claim on MCOL and in the process of filing an appropriate claim.

 

 

However having spent hours trawling through different cases I cannot make heads/tails of what I need to make mine relevant.

 

I have not received anything further since clicking defend on MCOL,

shouldn't I be recieving anything from the claimant as I have read elsewhere?

 

Sorry for the silly questions,

this is definitely not something I planned to happen

and any advice on writing the defence would be greatly appreciated.

 

Also,

once I file the defence what would happen?

I am out of the country for the whole of August

- how would this work?

[dx100uk]

no sadly we and you missed reminding you to send a CPR 31:14

get one running listing the relevant docs you require tomorrow [Monday]

[petroholic]

Thanks dx100uk. Slight confusion, on the letter it states "the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of each of the following document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim".

However on the claim letter this is what is under the Particulars of Claim section;

 

- DATE 24/03/16 -

- AMOUNT - £150 -

- DUE DATE - 27/04/16 -

Total Due - £150

AND THE CLAIMAINT CLAIMS

The claimant claims the sun of £152 for parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable including £1.81 interest pursuant to S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 Rate 8.00% pa from dates above to 21/06/16.

Some rate of Judgment or (sooner) payment

Daily rate to Judgment £0.03

Total debt and interest £152

 

Based on the above what documents do I ask from them?

[dx100uk]

if you click on the blue ericbrother to the left of any of his posts

it will say find all posts

 

 

then have a browse of a few where court claim is in the title of the thread he replies too

 

 

its listed somewhere.

you cant post it till Monday anyway

[petroholic]

Thank you, will have a look now.

Ps. Sorry about the previous post with the huge writing, not too sure what happened there

[dx100uk]

so kay easily sorted.

 

sight of any documents they intend to rely upon during the claim.

 

like

proof of permission from land owners to issue court claims on their behalf.

 

proof of planning permission for their signs

 

you'll get the idea.

 

dx

[petroholic]

Ok makes sense, I think!

Would it be worth asking for proof of documents which were supposedly sent to me such as NTK.

 

I stand firmly on the basis this was not sent/received to my registered address.

 

Edit: Seems to have cut the first bit of my post. I managed to find a relevant case and have extracted certain bits and molded it into a letter below.

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Re: Parking and Property Management Limited VS (Name)

Case No: (xxxxxxxxxx)

 

CPR 31.14 Request

 

On 24/06/17 I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the Northampton County Court Business Centre.

 

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim.

 

 

To enable me to file my defence, I require inspection of documents you mention in your statement of case ahead of filing my defence on 22/07/2016.

 

Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of each of the following document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

 

1: Agreement / Contact with Landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts and make claims in their own name

2: Proof of planning permission for the signs displayed in the car park

3: Proof of relevant documents which you state were sent to the registered keeper prior to this case being referred to the courts

 

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

 

You should note that this claim has not yet been allocated to a specific track and the provisions of CPR 27(2) are of no effect.

 

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter.

 

If you are unable to comply with this request and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request, please confirm this in your response.

 

Yours faithfully

(Name)

[petroholic]

Any recommended amendments before I send the above?

[ericsbrother]

that will do fine.

Also find out if PP was granted so you can beat them with that particular stick later. If they respond that signage has "deemed consent" then make a complaint to the court abiut this as this is a lie and they know it. Plenty of cases where parking co's have lost out (also see the now famous Mansfield thread)

[petroholic]

Thanks EB will do. This is something the local council can advise me on right?

[ericsbrother]

yes, dont take any rubbish answer from them either, planning consent IS needed,

 

even though it will be a nod through anywhere other than a conservation area

 

so a clear yes or no answer is all that is wanted.

[petroholic]

Ok sure. Letter to GS sent recorded delivery today. Let's see what nonsense they come back with!

[dx100uk]

little point

they are not compelled to answer.

 

 

its in your CPR so that's good enough

[petroholic]

Understood dx, thank you.

 

Really ought to start drafting up a defence ready to submit by 22nd.

Would it be worth mentioning to the courts that I will be absent for the entirety of August?

[ericsbrother]

you will get an allocation questionnaire so that can be put on there. A realistic time scale is 6 months from now for a hearing date

I did mean ask the council about PP, not Gladdys. They will know that they are sunk without it and so will try and bluff.

[petroholic]

Ok sounds good, thanks EB

 

Yep sorry got my wires crossed,

sent an email to SBC enquiring about the PP however still to hear back from them.

 

 

Will give them a call as I have a feeling I will be waiting for that email response for some time!

[petroholic]

Received this from SBC yesterday;

 

"Thank you for your email regarding land behind 271-279 High Street Slough.

 

This land is private property therefore they do not require permission from this Authority."

[dx100uk]

hehe

ofcourse they do.

planning permission for the signs

what muppets

[Bazooka Boo]

Received this from SBC yesterday;

 

This land is private property therefore they do not require permission from this Authority."

 

:pound:Oh boy, that has brightened my day already! How awesome is that response! Brilliant, you just can't teach that level of stooopidnes....

[Raykay]

The council may consider the matter to be covered by Advertising Consent, which may not need permission, instead of Planning Permission.