Jump to content
dejam99

UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London ***Discontinued***

Recommended Posts

Hi,

First of all, thank you for the support you all provide through this site.

I have received a Parking Charge Notice from CPM (UK Car Park Management) for 'Unauthorised Parking' in a small car park. The bays are unmarked and the signs are barely readable attached high on the walls in small prints. I am the registered keeper but not the driver of the time.

The issue date was last year June 17 and was for £100 or reduced to £60 if payed in 14 days. It was sent to me in post with two pictures of my car in the letter. The reason was 'unauthorised parking'. Since then, I received another letter called 'Formal Demand' roughly after 40 days of the first letter where it says to pay £100.

Then I started receiving 3 DRP letters (2 in sept and 1 in Oct 17) asking to settle payment of £160. Following that, I received a letter from Gladstone Solicitors in Nov 17 asking me to settle payment of £160 and then another ' Letter before claim' in June 18.

Taking advice from other forums, I decided ignore them and I never contacted or reply to any correspondence thinking that they will stop.

Now (Sept 2018), I have received a Claim Form from County Court Business Centre, Northampton asking to pay CPM £174.67 + £25 court fee + £50 legal rep fee total of £249.67.

I have kept all evidence of letters and pic of the car park including the sign they have up.

I need advise on what to do next.

I have read different threads and you tube videos and all saying this is fake court.

The court logos are blurred out and looks like the letter has been copied.

Is this a actual court?

The letter contains moneyclaim.gov password.

Please can you offer me advise om what to do next?

I have 14 days to acknowledge of service then submit my defence.

I can upload pics of letters and photos upon request.

Please speak to me in layman's term as I don't fully understand the process.

 

Questionnaire:

1 Date of the infringement - 23/06/2017

 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 10/07/2017

 3 Date received 13/07/2017

 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] - not anywhere in the letter far as I can see

 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - They took two pictures of my car and printed them in the letter

 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal]

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - I did not respond at all

 7 Who is the parking company? CPM

 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - BPA

 If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here - as mentioned above

 Thank you in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. Yes, we'll talk to you in layman's terms.

 

 

Thank you for the information so far, could you also fill in this one please with further information about the court claim?

 

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?465231-Received-a-Court-Claim-From-A-Private-parking-Speculative-invoice-How-To-Deal-With-It-HERE***Updated-Aug-2016***

 

 

Best, HB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum Dejam99.

I shouldn't think you have too much to worry about.

Before you even get to their signage And other necessary regulations they have to comply With before they can have a chance of winning in Court,

 

They have already screwed up by taking too long to send Out the NTK.

It a!so means they have breached GDPR.

 

Don't reply yet but their Witness Statement should be Interesting as they don't know who the driver was and if They haven't used POFA they cannot pursue you either.

 

Sorry about the spacing-I am using an IPad at the moment.

 

[spaced for you - dx]

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thread tittle updated

 

please stop reading/watching the rubbish on youtube

it will cost you dearly.

 

get that other link done please

 

you next moves are below:

 

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 3114 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim)

.

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also seen those utube shorts by people sayig it is a afake court,

note they reappear to complain they have been done over and got an illegal CCJ when it is all proper and they relied on other utube twonks advice spouting forth FOTM twaddle that harks back to the 17th century.

 

It is a court document issued by the business centre so they use computers to print out the forms adn stamp the docs, not soem bloke with half moon spectacles and a quill pen.

 

The first thing you will need to do is create an account at money claim.gov.uk and enter your govt gateway number.

You will find that most of the ones isued by HMRC dont work so just get a new one via the website.

You then tick the box saying i wish to defend in full and that then buys you another fortnight to submit some kind of a defence.

 

At this stage it can be something quite simple such as

"no keeper liability so no cause for action against defendant and furthermore no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant".

 

If they dont respond to the CPR 31.14 request you can also add

"the claimant has failed to show locus standi by way of an assignment by the landowner to them to enter into contracts and to make civil calims in their own name".

 

This will force them to show they have such permissions or thy get sent homw withour being able to say anything else

 

Now that will force them to actually do some work and then pay another fee.

Commonly they dont pay this fee and skulk away knowing they have been rumbled but in the meanwhile you go about gathering the evidence you need to defend the claim shoudl they not want to drop the matter.

 

So, pictures of signage, show us what correspondence you have and esp the NTK they originally sent.

 

Dont panic, this is all normal for the less honest parking companies.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Honeybee13 :)

I have now submitted the AOS.

here's my answers:

Name of the Claimant ? - UK Car Park Management Limited

claimants Solicitors: Gladstone Solicitors Limited

Date of issue – 19th Sept 2018

What is the claim for –

'The Driver of the vehicle registration ****** (The Vehicle) incurred the parking charge (s) on 23/06/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at 93-101 Greenfield Road - London, Greater London, E1 1EJ.

The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the Vehicle.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

£160 for parking charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £14.67 pursuant to s69 of the county court act 1984 at 8%pa, continuing to judgement at £0.04 per day.

What is the value of the claim? - £249.67

Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? Uk Car Park Management limited

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? - Not sure what it is. I didn't receive anything else other than what's noted in my original post.

So Far I noticed:

They took 17 days to issue the NTK.

DRP - Used Gladstone's letter headed paper to write to me

UKCPM Trying to recover DRP costs

I didn't get a PAP letter

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were you ever sent a pap letter? Knowing gladstones its very unlikely. This could stop their claim in its tracks if you didnt get one.

 

Nope, I didn't receive one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Welcome to the Forum Dejam99.

I shouldn't think you have too much to worry about.

Before you even get to their signage And other necessary regulations they have to comply With before they can have a chance of winning in Court,

 

They have already screwed up by taking too long to send Out the NTK.

It a!so means they have breached GDPR.

 

Don't reply yet but their Witness Statement should be Interesting as they don't know who the driver was and if They haven't used POFA they cannot pursue you either.

 

Sorry about the spacing-I am using an IPad at the moment.

 

[spaced for you - dx]

 

Thank you for the reply. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ericsbrother so much for your message.

I have done AOS and will send the CRP.

Will you guys help me put a defence together?

How can I post the letters and pictures on here?

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please read things very carefully, you will see that there is already a 2 line defence written for you if it matches your circumstances.

also it is a request for documents under CPR 31.14 so get it right or they will have reason to ignore you and you wont be able to point out their faults later, such as the failure to send a compliant lba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

here's my first stab at the defence. I need to submit this by 20th Oct so would love some feedback.

thanks for all your help so far :)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: #########

Between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

(Claimant)

-and-

##################

(Defendant)

_________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE STATEMENT

_________________________________________________________________________

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. It is admitted that the defendant, Mr ##########, residing at ############## at the time of the alleged infringement is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration marked ######## which is the subject of these proceedings

.2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right. 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

4. 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 the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")

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

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

4.1.2 That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

4.1.3 It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5. The defendant wrote to the claimant's solicitors on 25th September 2018 with a CPR 31.14 request. The claimant has failed to show locus standi by way of an assignment by the landowner to them to enter into contracts and to make civil claims in their own name. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Car Park Management Ltd, and no proof has been provided.

5.1 In the CPR 31.14 request, the defendant asked for:

5.1.1 Full particulars of the parking charges

5.1.2 Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management Ltd

5.1.3 A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park Management Ltd had their authority.

5.1.4 Proof of signage and planning permission for signage

The claimant solicitor has not responded with any of the above information. As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

5.2. The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

 

6. As the claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A).

6.1 No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;

“If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.”

6.2 UK Car Park Management Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the 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.

6.3 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.

6.4 The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question

6.5 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, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

7. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and which did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) which applied to VCS at the time.

If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because:

7.1 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

7.2 The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.

7.3 At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

7.4 The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and

7.5. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

7.6 There is contradicting signage within the same car park which is placed in a more prominent and readable format.

7.7 It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.

b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

8. The Claimant has provided no evidence the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting / giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.

8.1 It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 9.2.A as the claimant has not provided any evidence of the period of parking to which the notice relates

8.2 It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 9.5 as the Notice to Keeper was issued on the 10th July 2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.

‘5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.’

9. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

“ 1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):

1. Those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,

2. Those which are incoherent and make no sense,

3. Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant ”

9.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking

charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’

9.2 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

9.3 I believe the term 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. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

9.4 I suggest 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.

9.5 The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;

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

9.5.2 The Claimant has stated that a ‘ parking charge’ was incurred.

9.5.3 The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.

9.5.4 The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which 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 which could be considered a fair exchange of information.

The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

9.6 The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘ parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

9.6.1 The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

9.6.2 The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

9.6.3 The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

10. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

10.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.

10.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.

10.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.

10.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

10.5 It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

12. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

13. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

14. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

15. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

16. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

……………………………………………………. ………………………

(Defendant) (Date)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

forget it far too much waffle

 

as in EB's last post before your defence

 

Can you please read things very carefully, you will see that there is already a 2 line defence written for you

 

don't mention things [yet] that they don't [await ws time]

 

the 2/3 lines defence is available in 100's of like PPC claimform threads here already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this defence is straight out iof some other webs ites book on old and failing defences.

Anything that starts " it is admitted" gives this away.

 

 

IF and WHEN this actually gets to a heairng you will be able to write your own book on the points you wish to raise, at the moemnt you just want to indicate the outline of your defence so my suggestion of

"no contract offerd at the time so no cause for action can hav arisen

 

no kkeper liability so no cause for action agaist the defendant

the claimant has failed to show locus standi so the defendant does not belive they have a right to bring an action against anyone.

 

 

 

 

That is enoigh. File the rest for picking apart later if it is needed. Let them do all the running if they want to lose money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

thanks for the valuable feedback as ever, I realised I went over the top at this stage. I was following other existing defence templates from MSE.

Here's a shorter version as per to your feedback:

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

Claim No.: #########

Between

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED

(Claimant)

-and-

#############

(Defendant)

_________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE

_________________________________________________________________________

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The defendant, Mr #########, residing at ############, at the time of the alleged infringement is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration marked ######## which is the subject of these proceedings.

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3. No enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen.

4. No keeper liability so no cause for action against the defendant

5. The claimant has failed to show locus standi so the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

………………………………………………………. ………………………

(Defendant) (Date)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT IS NOT A STATEMENT OF TRUTH, YOU ARE MONTHS AWAY FROM THAT STAGE. This is clearly where things are getting confused. That is the end line of your Witness Statement, not the outline defence on the acknowledgement.

 

Just write the 3 lines and nothing else. Do it online so you arent tempted to scribble pages of unnecessary waffle.

If you want to use the 5 points you have chosen scrap point 1 as it is stating the bleedin obvious and so unnecessary. and the say point 2 but not as a bullet point, you then use point 3 and start with "because" then point 5 and finally point 4 so it flows logically

 

 

 

In short use common english

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just for clarification your defence is not due till/by Friday at 4pm.

hold off for now get it right first!

 

you file it via the MCOL website as you did the AOS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for all your help so far guys. greatly appreciated!

'It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability so no cause for action against the defendant.

The claimant has failed to show locus standi so the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone.

No enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen.'

Just checking this is what you were referring to?

thank you, I will do it through MCOL. I am aware of the Friday deadline but getting a bit anxious to get it in :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, it really is that simple and quite clear in the postings.

 

When it comes to legal matters you ahve to read things very carefully so you dont make assumptions on what is written and be precise in your use of words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Since I have posted the defence, I had the following:

 

1. Email one from Gladstone:

'Dear___

We write further to the attached correspondence. Please be aware CPR 31.14 is not applicable to small claims, the track this case will inevitably be allocated to however, in an effort to settle the matter please find attached evidence we currently have access to. Your Defence will be considered in due course.'

The have attached the PCN letter, the Overdue PCN letter and 2 pictures which are identical take 4 seconds apart.

 

2. Email two from Gladstone:

'Dear____

UK Car Park Management Limited

-v-

_________

 

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.'

They attached N180 Directions questionnaire, REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION PURSUANT TO PD27 which says the below:

We kindly request that the Court send the N159 form (a redacted example of which is attached) to the Defendant for their consideration and, upon the Defendant consenting to the case being heard on the papers alone, the Judge makes the following direction;

“The matter will be considered on paperwork without a hearing. The parties attendance is not required and the Judge will determine the matter based upon the documents and evidence supplied and any written representations received.”

 

3. I have also received a letter from court which says that it acknowledge receipt of my defence.

 

4. I have also received a letter which says 'notice of proposed allocation of the small claims track' and with it was a form called 'direction questionnaire' which is asking me complete by 16th Nov.

 

Next step - I understand that I need to complete this direction form. Do you guys have any advice on how I should complete this form? There are couple of questions which I am not sure what to answer.

 

Thanks for all your support so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure the court knows you want a proper hearing, these emails are to try o trick you, Gladdys want it "On The Papers" so they can lie and bring in stuff that would be inadmissable. They lie and cheat. The team will be along soon, but "On The Papers" is a no no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Tweets

  • Our picks

    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 9 replies
    • I am new here but very glad to find my way here and would welcome any input.
       
      i purchased a brand new campervan conversion from Hillside Leisure (175 miles from our home) on July 26th for £31,000 and, within 48 hours, during a storm, the alarm began to sound incessantly. We could not get it to stop, even after trying everything listed in the manual. We phoned Hillside on Saturday July 28th around 2.00pm. The young man who answered the phone said he would seek the advice of their technician and call us back, which he did. The technician told us that they, Hillside, couldn’t help, but that we should take the van to Nissan (the van is a Nissan) as the fault would lie with one of their components.
       
      • 42 replies
×
×
  • Create New...