HXCPM/Gladstones claimform ANPR PCN - Overstay Lawson Rd Brighouse HD6 1NY *** Claim Dismissed Costs awarded***

[ericsbrother]

Yep, make sure you send it in time but not too early. They will be sending theirs late if at all as they may well drop it once they have read your WS.

12th Oct is a friday so you will have to use the online dashboard to ask for claim to be dismissed if it doesnt automatically get stayed. Monday morns on the phone are horrendously busy but give it a try if the online method doesnt work. Some courts like to remind claimants they need to do thngs so give them a lot of leeway when it shouldnt happen

[Chimichanga]

Thanks for that EB all duly noted. Will have his WS completed ASAP and will post here for review if that's ok.

 

Thanks again for all your help and advice.

[Chimichanga]

Hello!

 

Hit a couple of minor stumbling blocks....

 

1.Can no longer manage claim online as case moved to different court. Everything has to be done manually now...no one seems to be able to explain why this has happened.

2. Cant find a PDF of CPR 16.4 for WS. any ideas where it's hiding online?

 

Cheers

[dx100uk]

why do you need 16.4?

why do you need to get on MCOL?

 

just get you WS done

mcol ended once you returned N180

[Chimichanga]

I thought MCOL stayed 'live' until case had been heard. My mistake. Thought that was where he could check if and when court fee had been paid?

Needed pdf 16.4 as part of WS 'exhibits" so WS could be submitted via email in addition to hard copy.

[dx100uk]

not sure if you've benen told

but never use email ever

it gives them a freeway to harass you and submit documents late.

 

WS must go by POST or handed into the court directly by yourself

the sols copy can be royal mailed as long as you get free proof of posting from the PO counter

you do not need theirs to be sent recorded.

[dx100uk]

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=CPR+16.4&sa=Search+CAG

[Chimichanga]

nope not been advised that before....court said to email.

 

Will only send hard copies! Thanks

 

Is it wise to post the WS here for review?

[dx100uk]

you don't need to inc a copy of 16.4 in your WS bundle

 

a good WS is here.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?475059-euro-parking-gladstones-claimform-PCN-maghull-centre-merseyside-**DISCONTINUED-COSTS**/page3

 

yes always post it here well in advance

 

whens the cut off date?

[Chimichanga]

perfect thanks DX

 

court date 2nd nov so in post by 17th??

[dx100uk]

whats this rubbish earlier then about it being the 5th then extended to the 12th then?

it should be 14 days the 19th in my book..

 

or was that the date they had to pay the fee by?

if not, what date have they got to pay the fee by?

[Chimichanga]

I really appreciate everyone's help on here, but sometimes I think posters can be a little rude. I'm always careful about my tone and the language I use, maybe you could afford me the same?

 

The dates refer to the fee payment deadline...it was 5th oct but was extended to 12th oct. Court date 2nd Nov

 

thanks

[dx100uk]

by rubbish I didn't mean your rubbish...just the fleecers pulling some strings I expect..

 

well the 12th is not too far away, you could get your WS prepared to an extent..but if they don't pay on the 12th then it aint going nowhere and you ask for the claim to be struckout.

[Chimichanga]

Thanks DX. Sorry....the stress is getting to me now, feel like the world is out to get us at every turn...bad weekend!

 

Perfect, will redact the witness statement and post for review in the morning.

 

Again, thanks for your help.

[dx100uk]

not an issue

 

we just know all the stunts these fleecers play and somethings forget others don't.

[Chimichanga]

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXXXX CLAIM NO: XXXXXX

BETWEEN

 

HX CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

CLAIMANT

V

 

XXXXXX

DEFENDANT

 

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

 

I, XXX of XXX, am the Defendant in this case.

 

The facts in this case come from my own personal knowledge except where indicated otherwise.

 

I have included documents within this witness statement referenced with page numbers beginning with XXX.

 

This witness statement is made in readiness for the hearing on XXX in defence of the Claimant’s claim.

 

1. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise, that the car was indeed parked on the site in question.

 

2. It is unclear if the Claimant is pursuing the Driver or the Keeper.

 

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the Keeper of the Vehicle XXX on XX November 2017.

 

4. It is denied that the Defendant was the Driver of the Vehicle XXX on XX November 2017, the Claimant is put to strict proof. A letter from the Defendant’s place of employment confirming the Defendants whereabouts on the date of the alleged breach is included as Exhibit XXX.

 

4.1 The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or

otherwise) that the Defendant was the Driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). A copy of the schedule included as Exhibit XXX.

 

4.2 Before seeking to rely on the Keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

4.2.1 There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and

4.2.2 That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the Driver to the registered Keeper.

4.2.3 The Notice to Keeper (“NtK”) does not include 9(2)f from Schedule 4, which is the mandatory warning about keeper liability after the prescribed 28 day period so the conditions are not met for purposes of paragraph 6. Therefore according to POFA, the Defendant cannot be liable as the keeper for the alleged debt of the driver.

4.2.4 To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the Keeper is the Driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the Vehicle Keeper is obliged to name the Driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter. A copy of s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 included as Exhibit XXX.

 

5. The Defendant did not enter into any ‘agreement on the charge’. No consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

 

6. HX Car Park Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. The Defendant has reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.

6.1 The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the

landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

6.2 The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a

vehicle parking at the location in question.

6.3 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.

 

7. The Particulars of Claim fail to fulfil CPR Part 16.4 because it does not include a statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies, only referring to a Parking Charge Notice with no further description; it fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. Exhibit XXX

 

8. The Claimant has not provided enough details in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract that it is alleged was broken have not been provided.

8.1 The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.

8.2 The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.

8.3 The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the PoC. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

8.4 The PoC claims ‘The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle’ There is no clarity under which of these the Defendant is being pursued.

8.5 The Particulars of Claim contains insufficient detail and fails to establish a cause of action that would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing a cause of action.

 

9. The Claimant is in breach of its pre action obligations as set out in the Practice Direction. No information or documents have been provided to the Defendant despite requests from the Defendant on two separate occasions. Exhibit XXX

 

10. The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstone’s Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

 

11. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details or even checking for a true cause of action. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The Defendant believes the terms for such conduct is ‘robo claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant. Indeed, The Defendant received correspondence from Gladstone’s Solicitors referencing their Client ‘XXX Management Limited’ which is not in fact the client. Exhibit XXX

 

12. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

 

13. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

 

14. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Exhibits XXX and XXX **** as per your above comments DX i'm guessing these exhibits are not needed? ****

I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

[dx100uk]

and the fact it was an under 10mins pverstay?

[Chimichanga]

NtK doesn't state the length of alleged overstay? Only total number of minutes of stay

or am I just blind?

[honeybee13]

How long did you stay and how long do the signs say you can stay please?

 

 

HB

[Chimichanga]

Hi HB

 

Ntk states duration 75 mins.

Signs say 1 hour 50p, 2 hours £1

[dx100uk]

ok lets look at post 8 scan

 

sheet 3 shows up 2 photos but you've blanked out the timings.

 

sheet 4 however days:..

 

entry 09:57:31

exit 11:12:46

duration 75mins.

 

 

….

so...

 

there is a minimum of 10mins grace [no max]

 

and what time did you pay for [just 1 hrd with the option to have paid for a longer period]

or is that ALL you can pay/stay for.

 

if these are true or not

look at the original granted planning permission give by the relevant council on their website planning debt spot.

 

I would expect that they stipulated a minimum of 3hrs FREE parking or such like and some little tyke [urm..] has decided to change these rules without consent…

 

not sure if your done all this but it needs resolving eitherway.

 

I would argue that 15mins to read the signs etc is quite reasonable and add in that the time to exit from the space too to the ANPR exit, there were lots of card in the queue to get out wasn't there...

they'd have to produce footage to disprove this...

 

understanding where im coming from......

[Chimichanga]

understand completely, problem is, Keeper genuinely doesn't know who was driving the car that day! Me neither. It was two days before an epic journey to NZ, the house was teeming with bodies bidding farewells! :-0

[Chimichanga]

Have tried many times to view planning consent online but can't find it anywhere. I'm not great at this can you tell????

 

But while searching saw this!

 

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/huddersfield-parking-firm-fining-people-14790956

[dx100uk]

god what muppets that newspaper are.

its not a fine

its not a penalty charge notice.

 

…………

 

its matters not who was driving forget that

they are suing the registered keeper

 

whats the max stay there 1hrs?

[Chimichanga]

Of course. Good point!

 

Max stay is Two hours. Although signs on the walls are different to what's on the machine itself. I took photos so will dig those out.

 

Also found a similar 'case' on another forum, also with hxcpm, which has images of the 'contract'between O&C Property Management and HXCPM. I'm not entirely sure if O&C own the land or just 'manage' it.

 

Haven't looked at it properly. My brain hurts. Will resume tomorrow.

 

Thanks DX don't know where we'd be without you all!!