Euro parking Services/Gladstones Claimform - for PCN

[Startkey&Clutch]

Can anyone tell me if the sign here is able to form a contract please?

 

 

Im helping someone prepare a court defence and am hoping this constitutes defective signage.

[Old Cogger]

Not another FOTL question

[unclebulgaria67]

That sign on its own has no effect. If the terms/conditions were viewable nearby then both might form an offer.

 

But you would need to post up the other signage.

 

No expert on this. Others on here will be of more help, if more information is provided.

[Startkey&Clutch]

The other signs and on walls around the car park.

[Startkey&Clutch]

The other signs are on walls around the car park, they are claiming no permit although the driver has a permit.

[unclebulgaria67]

The other signs are on walls around the car park, they are claiming no permit although the driver has a permit.

 

Was the permit displayed ?

 

Is this a car park they normally use ?

 

What is the story ?

 

Who owns the land ?

[Startkey&Clutch]

I understand they didn't display the permit.

 

They use the car park every weekday as it is at the rear of their office, its used by all the office staff.

 

They got a ticket for failing to display permit even though the warden knows they are allowed to park there,

then came ntk,

they ignored this

 

 

Gladstones got involved,

they wrote back to Gladstones denying the debt claiming 'no keeper liability' due to defective ntk,

then came court papers.

 

The land owner changed recently and they don't know who now owns it but still have a permit.

[BazzaS]

The notice shown in your first post doesn't establish a contract.

It says that there are vehicles allowed (pre-authorised or with a permit), and thus others are not allowed. It also refers to the full T's & C's.

 

The 2nd sign in your 2nd post is the one creating an offer to treat, which if accepted (by parking : other than preauthorised or displaying the permit correctly / within their parking rules) creates the contract.

 

One might argue that with no permit the first sign means the car driver had committed a trespass to land, preventing a later contract being able to be formed as the trespass is unlawful. However, this won't help the person who had a permit.

 

With a permit, the 2nd sign can create a contract, once their offer is accepted (by parking and remaining parked if the signage was adequate).

 

Was there a NTD? (Ticket left on the car - rereading it seems likely there was)

What were the dates of parking / the dates of the NtK? The NtK may be noncompliant if sent in the wrong time frame.

 

Do they make any mention of an appeal service?

 

Even if they might establish a contract, their NtK would have to be compliant with POFA if they want to pursue the Registered Keeper.

Will they be able to identify the driver? (DON'T identify the driver!)

[dx100uk]

can you fill this out please

so we can properly advise

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465231-Received-a-Court-Claim-From-A-Private-parking-Speculative-invoice-How-To-Deal-With-It-HERE***(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

dx

[unclebulgaria67]

I understand they didn't display the permit.

They use the car park every weekday as it is at the rear of their office, its used by all the office staff.

They got a ticket for failing to display permit even though the warden knows they are allowed to park there, then came ntk, they ignored this and Gladstones got involved, they wrote back to Gladstones denying the debt claiming 'no keeper liability' due to defective ntk, then came court papers.

The land owner changed recently and they don't know who now owns it but still have a permit.

 

So they defend the claim on the basis of having a valid permit to park on the land and that even if the permit was not displayed, the warden who checks on cars would know the car has a permit as the parking space is used on a daily basis.

 

Can you post up the particulars of claim and those more knowledgeable will respond further.

[renegadeimp]

And after all this, theres the whole supremacy of contract thing too. You work there, You are allowed a space.

[Startkey&Clutch]

I've spoken to the person concerned and it turns out they didn't have a permit at the time the ticket was issued, apparently the warden said he was fed up with ticketing them all and so gave them a permit.

The NTK said quite clearly that the time to appeal had passed so would not hear an appeal.

 

Dx I will fill that in when I get home this evening.

At no point has the driver been disclosed to them

 

I can post up the ntk also when I get in.

[renegadeimp]

SO hes admitted that he falsely gave everyone a ticket?

[ericsbrother]

the signage is prohibitive so there is no contractual consideration so no breach of contract.

 

 

This means that without a permit the motorist is a trespasser and only the landowner may sue for damages. not some mickey mouse parking co.

 

So, a skeleton defence should include the points that

1/ there is a supremacy of contract,

2/there is no keeper liability as the protocols of the POFA have not been adhered to and

3/ there was no contract to consider or breach so there is no cause for action by the plaintiff.

 

They know they will lose because there are bags of cases on the same point where the parking co got spanked, including several of Gladdys clients.

[Startkey&Clutch]

Many thanks ericsbrother. The person with the claim form gave me this after I asked them to fill in dx100uk form...

Date description amount-due date

08/04/16 Fj63Eto/21015 £150 6/5/16

Total due - £150

Claimant claims

The claimant claims the sum of £152.73 for parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable including £2.73 interest pursuant to S.69 of the county courts act 1984 rate 8% pa from dates above to 28/07/2016 same rate to judgement or sooner payment daily rate to judgement 0.03%

Total debt and interest £152.73

 

When does the defence have to be in by please?

[dx100uk]

whats the issue date of the Claimform [top right]

[Startkey&Clutch]

29th July 2016

[dx100uk]

so 33 days from that date

whereby that is count one of the 33

 

 

has the claim been ack'd on mcol website

defend all yet?

 

 

dx

[Startkey&Clutch]

The claim has been acknowledged but not defended, the box was left blank.

[dx100uk]

well you should be able to pop back on to mcol

and select defend all

and leave jurisdiction unticked to

couple of screen to click thru then confirm.

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

the other signs say that terms and conditions apply.

 

 

These are not offers of a contract but "invitations to treat" so makes the claim even easier to defend.

 

so, if you want a couple of bullet points to use now then the following will do.

 

There is no contract offered so no cause for action by the plaintiff.

[Startkey&Clutch]

Yes that's where we are up to, I think 31st August is deadline for filing the defence, is that correct?

[dx100uk]

no...by 4pm 30th..read post 18

[ericsbrother]

write up what you think the main points are as bullet points that you would like to go into more depth on if necessary. Planning permission for their signage is another good one.

[Startkey&Clutch]

Is this ok to send?

 

 

 

 

DEFENCE

1.The terms at the car park do not for a contract, there is no contract offered so no cause for action by the plaintiff. The defendant refers to the

Consumer Rights Act 2015 which supports a consumers position in

that the signage failed to make any obligation and/or risk of

penalty prominent.

 

2. A clear sign stating the terms and conditions at the entrance

to the car park is a specific requirement that the claimant is

required to follow. This was absent therefore there was no contract to consider or breach so there is no cause for action by the plaintiff

 

3. The claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in

the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring

an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the

claimant may not pursue any charge. It follows therefore that if a

debt exists it is owed to the landowner not the claimant.

 

4. I have reasonable belief that the claimants intention was not

to offer a genuine contract to park and that the main purpose was

to deter to enforce a penalty.

 

5. The defendant neither admits or denies that he was the driver,

the claimant has failed to meet the conditions of The Protection

of Freedoms Act to pursue her as the registered keeper of the

vehicle.

 

6. Even if a contract had been formed it would be void due to the

claimant not acting in good faith.

 

7. The defendant disputes that the claimant has incurred £50

solicitors costs to prepare the claim. The defendant has

reasonable belief that Gladstone solicitor did not prepare the

claim and did not therefore charge the stated amount.

 

8. The defendant has the reasonable belief that the claimant is

abusing the court process by using the threat of action to alarm

the defendant into making a payment that is not owed.

 

9. The claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum

has been calculated , the conduct that gave rise to it or how the

amount has climbed from £100 to £150.

 

10. The claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The

particulars of claim contain no detail and divulge no cause of

action. The defendant has no idea what the claim is about , why

the charge arose or what the alleged contract was . There is

nothing that provides a basis for understanding why the claimant

has asked the court to order the payment. The defendant invites

the court to use its case management powers to strike out the case

as having disclosed no cause of action.

 

11. If the claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the

defendant on the basis that the defendant is the registered keeper

then the claimant has failed to show that the conditions for

recovering the charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of

Freedoms Act 2012 have been met.

 

12. No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver

was given to the driver in accordance with paragraph 7 Schedule 4

of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Where a notice to driver

was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid

notice to keeper was served in accordance with paragraph 8.

 

13. There is no evidence of any contravention at all.

 

I deny any liability for any sum being due at all to this claimant

and confirm that where stated facts are given within this defence,

I hereby confirm that they are true.

 

 

 

•