HXCPM/Gladstones vanishing Windscreen PCN claimform - Flipped Ticket - St Georges Car Park, Fitzwilliam St, Huddersfield ***Claim Dismissed***

[dx100uk]

in just about any pnc claimform thread in this forum.

use our search

[skeet23]

OK - I get it ... more is less because it restricts your wiggle room later. Would this be sufficiently terse:

 

The Defendant denies that any contract was formed between the Claimant and himself.
The Claimant has failed to establish Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act.
The Particulars of Claim contain no detail as to the nature of any breach of a contract.
The Defendant does not believe the Claimant has locus standi since they have failed to produce any evidence of assignment of rights from the landowner as part of CPR 31.14 request, nor have they produced any evidence of planning permissions for their signage and equipment.
It is therefore requested that the claim be struck out under CPR 16.4

--skeet23

[brassnecked]

Looks OK, the regulars will no doubt have a look and comment then you should be good to go.

[dx100uk]

Looks ok

[skeet23]

Thankyou, everyone.

I'll submit it on the MCOL system this evening and keep you all posted.

Cheers

--skeet23

[skeet23]

Well, they don't hang about, do they !

On Monday, Gladdys emailed me (I put my email address on the MCOL site, they must have grabbed it from there) 

>>>>>

Re : Our Client : HX Car Park Management Limited 
Claim Number: XXXXXXXX 
 
We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.   
 
Please find enclosed 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. We trust you agree.   
   
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.  
 
Yours sincerely 

<<<<<

Attached to this mail is an N180 Directions Questionnaire. Having scanned through this, I have a concern regarding section D1:

At which County Court hearing centre would you prefer the small claims hearing to take place and why?

 

PURSUANT TO PD27 (2.4) SEE REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION AND N159. If the Defendant does not consent - Claimant's home court.

 

Is the request for special direction their request to do it "on the papers" ... and does the "Claimant's home court" mean I'm going to have to travel half way across the country to defend myself?

 

• Do I need to do anything about this now?
• Assume it's best to email back and instruct them to (1) not use this email address again and (2) send all further correspondance by post.

 

On Tuesday, a letter from the court arrived stating that they acknowledge receipt of my defence and it will be served on the Claimant and/or their solicitors ... they have 28 days to decide to proceed otherwise he case will be stayed.

 

• I assume I don't need to respond to this!

 

Best Regards

--skeet23

[honeybee13]

It sounds as if they could be trying something on, let's see what the others think. Please don't reply until they've had a look.

 

Certainly you don't want to agree to a hearing on the papers only because they can come up with any old toot and you won't be there to argue with it.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

std practice 

when the time comes you object to paperwork only hearing.

 

block and bounce their email ad

send one more email to them now.

 

subject:

court claim XXXX date

 

this email address is not to be used for the service of any documents relating to the above case.

 

…………….

 

you should be reading up and you'd known about this and wht to do.

 

 

 

[skeet23]

Thanks, @dx100uk.

What about the "Claimant's home court" bit ... or is that safe to ignore for now ?

--skeet23

[dx100uk]

load of ole twaddle

if you read a few like threads which you should be doing in the down periods

you'll see they always do this and how to deal with it AT THE CORRECT TIME.

 

 

[brassnecked]

You want a Hearing, that email is the usual Gladdys trick to engineer a Default Judgment by getting the victim(defendant) to agree to let their dodgy POC and fictional WS be unchallenged at a hearing.

[ericsbrother]

they are hoping to get you to agree to a hearing "on the papers" because they know they will lose their client a wad of cash if they have to get someone to attend your local court and tell porkies for them as they dont actually attend themselves.

 

Note they say they are prepared to send this to court on their clients request.

In other words they have no authority to do this yet so if they do they will be clobbered for Champerty and Maintenance. (look it up)

 

you will be sent a directions questionnaire by the courts so you respond to that and not their attempt to mug you.

 

you NEVER email these bandits and if they email you then you block their email addy as spam and make sure they bounce back so they know they ahve been rumbled

[skeet23]

Hello, All.

Just a quick update - I received the N180 last week and posted it today.

Stated "No" to mediation (since gladstones already have already declined mediation) and that I wanted a hearing in my local court.

I guess now is the time to start working on a proper witness statement

- they are not going to back down now, are they ?

 

Any suggestions or reccommended templates or outlines gratefully received.

--skeet23

[dx100uk]

did you copy the N180 to gladdies minus email/phone/sig.??

 

 

[brassnecked]

If you did give out e,mail block it  and send them a letter stating you do not accept Legal Documents via email,  date it and keep a copy. as they like to send stuff at 11:59 pm the day before court and claim you had the info requested.

[skeet23]

@dx100uk, @brassnecked

Yes. As per the advice on other threads, gladdies copy did NOT have my email address, phone number or signature.

They have already tried their email trick (see posts #56-62) and have been told to use (royal) mail for service of documents and that future emails will be blocked.

--skeet23

[dx100uk]

Good

[skeet23]

A bit of an update:

 

N180 received and returned to court on 10th July as per post #64.

(August) Received hearing date ... hearing would have been during my holiday abroad.

(August) Wrote to court, stating that hearing was during the "unavailable dates" I had filled on the N180

(September) Court vacated original hearing date and re-listed for a new date.

 

Here's the good bit ... our friends in Knutsford possibly have not twigged this ... because today, via EMAIL (despite having explicitly told them to serve documents by POST), I received their witness statement.

Guess it's lucky that I screwed up blocking their domain !

 

Anyway, I'll get my witness statement finished off in the next couple of days.

What's the best way of getting it to you guys for review without tipping off the opposition ?

(Similarly I guess I can share their w/s)

 

Best Regards

--skeet23

[dx100uk]

Pop them both up as pdf uploads here

[skeet23]

Here's the text portion of the claimant's witness statement.

I will upload the remainder of it soon (it's all images inside the PDF and will take a bit of work to extract and redact)- but in summary it will contain:

* The contract between the landowner and claimant

* Images of the payment machine and signage (IMPORTANT - these are different from the pictures I have taken !)

* Site map showing position of signage

* Audit log from "zat park" roboclaims software

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Original NTK Letter

* Final Demand Letter

* Some postal logs

* My "Appeal" letter

* Appeal Rejection Letter

* Parking Whitelist

* Pictures of the vehicle

* Letter before Claim

 

I don't intend to upload the NTK and anything below that (unless someone asks) ... it's either already on this thread, or, in my view, not really relevant.

 

Also, the mail from gladdys contained this:

 

The assumption is that our Client is not attending the hearing and therefore we kindly request this notice be treated as a notice pursuant to CPR 27.9.

What does this mean ? Is it am attempt to get an "on the papers" hearing ?

Thanks

--skeet23

WS-Redacted.pdf

[dx100uk]

you only need to redact anything that ID's YOU the rest can stay.

 

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

The CPR 27.9 should mean that they are not going to attend

-probably because they know that if you turn up they will lose and so they will save the cost of a lawyer.

 

what they should do then is to send in their case to the Court and the Judge will decide on the merits of their arguments against yours.

 

If they do not send in their argument the Court will more often than not dismiss the case.

Of course just because they say they are not going to be there does not mean that they won't turn up.

 

You have a number of things in your favour, not least that both the parking co. and their solicitors are total numpties.

 

In this instance, 

Parking Eye v Beavis actually works in your favour since the Judges in that case laid out their reasoning as to when a charge is penal or not.  Lord Sumption said

 

Quote

The true test [of when a charge is a penalty] is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation. 

 

and Lord Dunedin carried on by saying

 

Quote

that the provision would be penal if “the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach.

 

 

You paid to park there so there was no loss to them and having the ticket upside down no way could be classed as a primary obligation and having paid the ticket the loss to "the breach" is minor and the charge is extravagant.

 

The problem with the ticket could at best be described as a secondary obligation and it is therefore a penalty and as such the charge is unenforceable.

 

Many cases are won because the parking cos. have been unable to prove if the keeper and the driver are one and the same.

So not using POFA in their NTK is to your advantage.

 

You could also point out that if the attendant was able to take a photograph, then he should have issued you with a ticket there and then.

 

If he didn't the company was circumnavigating the rules by sending out the NTK rather than issuing a Notice to Driver which could potentially take them longer to get paid by the keeper should the driver not pay.

 

alternatively there could be GDPR problems with the attendant issuing a NTD in which case thus sending out a NTK could conceal that fact.

 

From their WS they are assuming that you are the driver since they are including the £60 additional charge which is only payable by the driver as POFA has confirmed since the keeper was not the one that parked the car and agreed to the parking conditions. 

 

It's a bit naughty of Marland to underline no 9 of his WS relating to the driver/keeper conundrum since it tries to imply that the keeper at the time the car was parked was the driver which is not what POFA means at all.

[dx100uk]

 I hope he will be in court 

else that WS is somewhat inadmissible......

 

on the point of a valid ticket must be displayed

it was..where does anything they claim state it must be face up??

 

as for 'staff time' , they are paid regardless.. bit like the stupid rubbish RLP and the retail stores come out with on retail theft....and that got thrown out..hence why they don't do court...

 

just musing...

[brassnecked]

Other thing is that point 8

 

"8. Notwithstanding the above, the Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the
Registered Keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently
rebut this presumption. The Court is therefore invited to conclude it more likely than not that
the Registered Keeper (i.e. the Defendant) was the driver."

 

He has shot himself in the foot trying to use Elliott v Loake as a belt and braces to prove keeper is Driver.  It's criminal, so not applicable in a Civil claim, that is explored on prankster's blog where it has been disregarded by the judge, as in a Criminal case there is a duty and a penalty if keeper doesn't name the driver, no such obligation in a Civil case.

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=elliott+v+loake

 

Other point is if Gladdys use the usual, the matter is simple so proposes an "On The Papers" hearing, insist on a court appearence as on the papers is an easy default for them as they don't want anything dodgy, like a de minimus upside down ticket displayed, proving no actual loss being aired.

[skeet23]

Hi, All.

Thanks for your comments.

Attached is the remainder of "their" WS ... and the first draft of mine.

I look forward to your feedback.

Regards,

--skeet23

WS-Redacted_2.pdf skeet23_witness_statement_01.pdf