Gemini/gladstones claimform - Windscreen PCN Queens hosp Romford - P+D ticket !***Claim Dismissed***

[2ltr16valve]

Indeed not directly but does mention Keeper liability, which has to be estabished under Pofa I think ? Or am I way off ?

 

I really appreciate everyones help, please dont take me as being rude - Im so tired, have two poorly babies and now my wife has flu.

[dx100uk]

well as long as you don't get the flu.....

 

its not for you to prove or disprove

think about it...you are not the claimant.

 

send a separate letter asking for the claim to be struck out under CPR 3.4 under s2a and b.

an abuse of process as there is no keeper liability.

 

see post 38 here

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?482796-UkCPM-gladstones-claimform-PNC-St-Michaels-Church-Church-Square-Basingstoke&p=5087224#post5087224

[2ltr16valve]

Thank you dx

 

Hopefully I’ll dodge it, had flu jab as well with ambulance service as part of job.

 

I recall there being a certain format for setting out things to the court, can I find that in template library?

[dx100uk]

post 45 same thread

[2ltr16valve]

hows this look ?

 

To the County Court Business Centre,

 

am contacting you today in regards to the above claim number.

 

I am requesting this claim be struck out on procedural grounds, namely Civil Procedure Rules 3.4 2(a)(b), an abuse of process as there is no Keeper Liability.

 

The Driver was not the keeper of the vehicle and the claimant does not know the identity of the driver.

 

Furthermore, the amount claimed is in excess of the charge for allegedly breaching the contract for parking.

 

This under POFA 2012 amounts to an unlawful sum.

 

I request this letter be placed in front of a Judge and further request summary dismissal of this claim.

 

Sincerely

[dx100uk]

let EB check it in the morning

don't forget to inc the claim number....

[2ltr16valve]

Thank you

Claim number is on word document, just didn’t copy it good call though

[ericsbrother]

Yes it is against the POFA and as they havent followed it with the rest of the demand

then it comes into play rather than ANY OTHER bit of contract law.

 

So, the most they can claim is £75.

It wont matter of their signs say they can claim £1000 if you dont pay up in a millisecond,

that was an offer to the driver, NOT the KEEPER.

 

That is why all of the scribble about recovery fees etc is just garbage.

they rely on your ignorance to get you to pay when it isnt due.

 

I am reading the POFA 2012 but cant get my head around how they fail on this ? Dont really understand it tbf

 

The only bit I can see of POFA 2012 is -

 

Section 4 (5)

 

(5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

 

The NTK states £75, then the letters from Zenith state £160 but will take £136, then letters from gladstones state £160.

 

Then court claim states - £169.62 (£160 charge + £9.62 interest) + 25 + 50 = £244.62

 

Is this in breach of POFA ?

[ericsbrother]

I just wrote an essay on this then did a second posting and the first one disappeared so here goes again

you write the words in quotations, no need to say dera sir, it will be sent from one place to another so polite formalities not needed

 

"Claim ref:

 

I request that the claim be summariy struck out for the following reasons:

 

1. the claimant has failed to state why there is a cause for action against the defendant as the claimants know they were not the driver at the time and there is no keeper liability in this matter as the plaintiff didnt not follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to create one.

 

2. The amount claimed is greater than the sum that would be due if there was a liability from the defendant to the plaintiff created under the POFA so the maximum that could be claimed would then be £75.

 

There is no explanation as to what lawful reason the extra amount emanates from as there is no contract between the claimant and defendant,

no allowance for any additions to the contractual sum liability under the POFA

and it is not allowed under civil procedure

so I assert that it is not a genuine claim for the recovery of monies owed but an abuse of the Civil Procedure process."

 

Signed and dated

 

you will repeat this as part of your defence when you submit that as well.

 

hows this look ?

 

To the County Court Business Centre,

 

am contacting you today in regards to the above claim number.

 

I am requesting this claim be struck out on procedural grounds, namely Civil Procedure Rules 3.4 2(a)(b), an abuse of process as there is no Keeper Liability.

 

The Driver was not the keeper of the vehicle and the claimant does not know the identity of the driver.

 

Furthermore, the amount claimed is in excess of the charge for allegedly breaching the contract for parking.

 

This under POFA 2012 amounts to an unlawful sum.

 

I request this letter be placed in front of a Judge and further request summary dismissal of this claim.

 

Sincerely

[2ltr16valve]

Thank you EB,

 

All printed and ready to send to the court tomorrow. Just need to sort the defence out now and get it filed.

[2ltr16valve]

Strike out letter been sent recorded thsi morning

[2ltr16valve]

trying to do my defence for this but aside from what EB has given I am lost where to start.

[2ltr16valve]

1.The Driver of the vehicle registration ******* ('the vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 02/02/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Queens Hospital - Queens Hospital Rom Valley Way Romford Essex RM70AG

 

2.The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.

3.AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

£160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable,

together with interest of £9.62 persuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day.

 

Defence

 

1)Can not be confirmed or denied as the Defendant was not the driver at that time or date.

 

2)It is denied the Defendant was the driver, it is admitted the Defedant is the Registered Keeper.

I request that the claim be summariy struck out for the following reasons:

 

(a) the claimant has failed to state why there is a cause for action against the defendant as the claimants know they were not the driver at the time and there is no keeper liability in this matter as the plaintiff didnt not follow the protocols of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to create one.

 

 

(b) The amount claimed is greater than the sum that would be due if there was a liability from the defendant to the plaintiff created under the POFA so the maximum that could be claimed would then be £75.

 

There is no explanation as to what lawful reason the extra amount emanates from as there is no contract between the claimant and defendant,

no allowance for any additions to the contractual sum liability under the POFA

and it is not allowed under civil procedure

so I assert that it is not a genuine claim for the recovery of monies owed but an abuse of the Civil Procedure process.

 

3)It is denied the Claimant is entitled to any parking charges/damages or indemnity costs from the defendant as there is no keeper liability.

 

Thats what Ive got so far ?

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

this is your defence, not a set aside or anything else

so get the language right or you bury yourself as it will be picked up on.

 

If you dont know a legal term use plain english in its commonest meaning and you wont go wrong.

 

your point 1 is dangerous and has already been advised against,

what are you thinking?

at this stage you arent cross examining them so no need to offer a defence against every detail of their claim.

 

start off with the following:

points 1 and 2 identical to the letter you are sending as you have already written.

 

3. the signage at the site does not have planning permission so are there illegally and it is not possible to enter into a criminal compact as a result.

 

4 in any case the terms offered for disabled parking offered by the hospital have not been broken and as they are separate and superior to any conditions offered by the plaintiff there has not and cannot be a breach of contract because no contract was ever formed between the two parties.

[2ltr16valve]

Thank you EB.

Now up A&E with one of the twins. Lethargic and won’t stay awake

[ericsbrother]

you have all of the details so you can go into it should you have to.

 

Just filing a defence makes them think about whether they are going to make any money from this ( most people dont)

and then the letter asking for a strike out will probably result in a Case Management Order from the court making them either rewrite their POC or give up.

 

As Gladstones do this by autopen and charge little for doing so

they wont want to spend any real effort on it

or they wont profit from the claim

and their clients will be livid to have to fork out more money due to the incompetent filing of Will and John.

 

As you can see from other posts ,it is rare to actually get as far as a hearing so dont lose faith- they are hopng you will bottle it.

[2ltr16valve]

Bad news.

 

Baby Harry is now in paediatric intensive care at the royal London hospital.

 

Is in induced coma and has been incubated.

[honeybee13]

I'm sorry to hear about Harry, 2ltr. My thoughts are with you all.

 

Hugs, HB

[2ltr16valve]

#trying to put defence up before we go back to hospital but am getting this page when i try to save or submit/next

 

We are sorry, but your request has been rejected owing to one or more technical reasons. Please check your input and try again. If you continue to get this message then please contact the Money Claim helpdesk.

 

It can be contacted for support between 9:00am and 5:00pm, Monday to Friday on:

 

Tel: 0845 601 5935

Fax: 0845 601 5889

 

If you prefer to write your query instead, please contact:

 

Money Claim Online

Northampton County Court

21-27, St. Katherine Street

Northampton

NN1 2LH

 

Or email to [email protected]

 

Please make a note of the following support id: 4147096528445175408

[ericsbrother]

post the form back then and try submitting online later.

 

As it is only a couple of lines it wont take a massive effort.

 

My thoughts are with you.

[2ltr16valve]

Write out and post it ?

[ericsbrother]

yes.

If you have the original N1 form use that,

otherwise a letter with the claim No on it.

 

Send it back to Northampton bulk centre or whatever address they have given you.

 

Failing that hand deliver to your local court or fax it to Northampton or your local CC

 

then worry about getting the online bit sorted later and resend if you can.

[dx100uk]

keep try mcol

its quite usual for it to have issues.

 

that's not the correct email address either.

 

no need to send the form you can email it to mcol too.

 

don't panic you have till 4pm

 

dx

[dx100uk]

comeback at about 3pm if you still cant file your defence via MCOL

[Homer67]

There's a full page article in the local free newspaper about the £1.7 million raised in Parking Charges by this Trust.

 

Taking your situation into account I would think the local newspaper Romford Post would love a call from you to tell them how you are being treated.