Millennium Door and Event Security/Gladstones - claimform - july 2012 PCN

[calibra]

I gather that.

 

I just thought that I should try and get hold of all documentation.

The ticket.

The images of the car with the ticket on.

The image of the signage.

The planning permission for the sign.

the contract between the PPC and the landowner.

The DVLA records of how they got my address etc.

 

And most inportantly for me,

as my main defence would be putting the onus on them to prove who the driver was, as it's pre PoFA, I wanted to know if they had any proof of who was driving e.g. CCTV.

 

And making sure all this was valid 4 years ago

- contracts, planning, everything.

They may have different contracts a now.

 

And then use all that in deciding what to put in my defence.

 

Maybe I'm expecting a bit much.

The car park

 

From what I can gather off you guys

 

Here is the car park - just this little 6 car one

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.618846,-3.9404724,3a,75y,104.73h,62.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFHo_1DFwM-9av4gErJ4_0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

incidentally,

the PPC is itself is based inside that office block.

They have a deal with the landlord to manage the car park.

[ericsbrother]

When they exchange their evidence bundle they will have to produce all of this, you can ask the court to strike out their claim as being malicious or vexatious if they dont. Of course any contract they rely on will have a start and end date so that could be interesting as you could get the landowner involved and they wouldnt be keen on that.

 

The current signage is pretty poor, all very small writing and not obvious that a contract being offered. also, the signage has the BPA logo on it so they will need to show that they have followed the BPA's CoP's that were applicable at this date and the signage certainly doesnt fulfil the current criteris.

 

The IPC know that their rules are far better than anyhting the Road Traffic Act, contract law or the BPA can invent so you wont get any sense frok them and that is a good thing as all they can do is dig a deeper hole for themselves.

 

When they have failed to show theirr easons for suing you via the CPR request you can ask the court to strike out their claim under CPR16.4 and say that they have failed to show cause for action against you as they have not offered any proof that you were the driver at the time. Give them the 14 days to tell you they arent going to comply with the discovery request before submitting this to court though.

 

It probably wont get chucked out immediately but when a court is allocated the judge may well read what has been dent in so far and then make it a case management issue, which could result in them being told they have no claim and that is that. (fingers crossed) in the maenwhile get the phots as well as google screen grabs. the signs opposite saying clamping will occur are quite helpful as they are 1) no longe legal and 20 confusing as they appear to be from another cpmpany so there is a doubt that this mob had the right to do anything at the time

Edited November 24, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[calibra]

Will do. Thanks.

[calibra]

I have to submit my defence by Friday.

 

 

The bit that worries me here,

is that it seems to be concentrating on the fact that Gladstones aren't doing their job properly (dodgy pocs),

rather than the individual issues, such as the "event" being pre-Pofa and not knowing the RK, signage etc.

 

Now I believe that once I submit this defence, I can't change it?

 

 

So isn't this a risky thing to submit?

 

 

Shouldn't I be putting everything I can think of down as a defence?

 

defence:

 

1. This is the skeleton defence of the Defendant, [Your name here].

 

2. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocols. They are a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical claims whether there is a cause of action or not.

 

3. These Particulars

I. Do disclose reasonable grounds to bring a claim

II. Are an abuse of process

III. Fail to comply with Part 16.4

4. We request that the Claimant files a coherent statement of facts which, if true, disclose a legally recognisable claim in line with the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant believes this is necessary to avoid the courts becoming clogged with trivial disputes based on the Claimant's negligence and misrepresentation, which bring the law into disrepute and harms the interests of parties who would be responsible for the costs of such actions.

 

5. The Defendant is embarrassed to plead further in light of the deficient particulars. The Defendant is entitled to know the case they have to meet. In addition the Claimant failed to respond to a Part 18 request sent on xx/xx/xx in an attempt to identify a cause of action

 

6. No admissions are made with regards to the claim. The Claimant is required to prove the same.

 

7. If the court is not minded to strike out such deficient Particulars, the Defendant therefore will address any inaccuracies or misleading information in my Witness Statement, and Skeleton Argument.

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH I believe the facts stated within this witness statement are true.

[dx100uk]

that's an embarrassed defence and quite correctly it is not ever to be used .

 

 

sorry ive removed the info of where it came from ..

 

 

the simple BW 2 line defence will do in many BW/VCS/EXCEL threads here

 

 

use the search CAG box of the red top toolbar

[calibra]

2 line defence? Nothing about pre-pofa? Surely pre-pofa should be the crux of the defence?

[ericsbrother]

The idea of the skeleton defence is to make a list of points you will be going into detail about when you submit the full version at the exchange of documents.

 

To this end I would add something to this that addresses the actual event so something like

 

1,that the claimant has failed to show they have locus standi by way of sight of a contract between the landowner and themselves and planning permission for their signage by responding to a CPR 31.14 request

 

2)They have failed to identify who the debtor is and there is no keeper liability in this manner.

 

3) In any case the signage is insufficient to form a contract and it is not clear what land is under the management of the claimant and the signage is confusing and contradictory"

 

your defence is asking for a strike out and although you may get it the chances are if the judge hasnt come across these people before they will look at a case management order to make both parties show their hands.

 

Now, having nothing else for the judge to read about your defence will make it harder for them to consider the matter on the paperwork alone and as the CMO is designed to save money and court time.

 

You can send in a separate request for the strike our on the grounds you have put in your above post.

 

By separate I mean on another letter enclosed with the defence or if you are submitting online than as a letter to the courts service reply address given to you. You can chase it up later

[calibra]

Is this not relying on the court to allow me to amend my defence if they do not strike the claim?

 

I'm worried here that I'll send the 2 line defence, and that'll be it

- the claim won't be stricken,

and I won't be able to amend my defence,

therefore the pre-Pofa stuff will be excluded?

 

When I first went on forums and told people about the circumstances of my ticket, pretty much every one of them said "don't worry, it's pre-Pofa - they can only go after the driver, not the RK".

 

So you can understand why I'm concerned about submitting a defence that doesn't include that? Seems really risky?

[calibra]

Just to confirm, this 2-line defence you are talking about - this the the actual defence I submit to MCOL yes?

[dx100uk]

on the mcol website yes

 

 

but post your thoughts up here first and don't forget to re read EB's last post again

as I feel [as you seem to do everytime] are getting things confused

[ericsbrother]

use the points 1) 2) and 3) in post #32 they cover all that you need to cover as a skeleton defence.

 

you will not be amending it but expanding on it in about 6 months time so no need to write a book at the moment. You will need to learn the difference between the Civil Procedure parts of a claim and the actions you need to take for your defence as you are confusing the 2 at the moment.

 

MCOL give you a flow chart to follow s look at it and understand what is expected at each stage. The parking co have things they need to do or they will be stuffed so do your bits and then formaly complain if they dont do theirs

Edited December 5, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.