Jump to content


Amis95

UKCPM/Gladstones ANPR PCN claimform - 93-101 GREENFIELD ROAD LONDON E1 1EJ - ignored everything to date

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

Wondering if you can help me. 

 

I received a claim form from County Court Business Centre, Northampton for Private parking fine I received back in June 2018.

I wasn’t wise in responding to any letters to date hoping it will go away which is my bad hence landed on this site for help.

 

Here are all the info you may need:

 

Name of the Claimant – UK Car Park Management

 

Claimants Solicitors – Gladstones

 

Date of issue – 10/06/2019

(Deadlines - 29th June for AOS

 

& 12th July for Defence)

 

Particulars of claim:

 

1.The driver of the vehicle with registration xxxxxx (the vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at 93-101 GREENFIELD ROAD – LONDON GREATER LONDON E1 1EJ, on 11/06/2018 thus incurring the parking charge (the PCN).

The driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN with in 28 days of issue yet failed to do so.

 

3.The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant as the driver/keeper of the vehicle.

 

4.Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 for the PCN,

£60 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions,

together with statutory interest of £11.69 pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum, continuing at £0.4 per day.’

 

Value of the claim - £246.69

 

The claim has been issued by the Private parking Company

 

Date of the infringement - 11/06/2018

 

Date on the NTK – 14/06/2018

They took two pictures of my car and printed them in the letter

 

 As mentioned, I did not respond to any communications.

 

I received, NTK, Formal Demand letter in July 18, two DRP letters on Aug 17 and one in Sept 18, and three Gladstones letter in Oct 18 and then ‘letter before claim’ in March and April 19.

 

I will do the AOS asap and send a SAR to UK CPM.

 

Please help me with a writing a defence,

I have already read through many,

but they are a bit overwhelming as I am not sure what my grounds are.

 

I am sure the driver did not agree to pay anything as they have stated in the particulars of the claim.

This was a Camera PCN so whoever was driving the car would have not known that they received a PCN.

 

Also, I have visited the car park to see the signage and they are appalling.

They are affixed high, with tiny fonts and the signages are blocked with bins and other materials so you can’t get close to it.

 

There are no signage at the entrance of the car park.

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you show us please where any of the court paperwork states you are being taken to court for a parking FINE please?

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 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]
 


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 [1 in the count]


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so when you have acknowledged the claim tell us all about the event and what paperwork you still have regarding it.

 

i see it is the E london business centre so were you there on business or just dropping the car off to go elsewhere?

 now that can make a difference to whether you have actually been offered a contract to park or not.

 

we will also ned to see the signs and whislt you are at it you make a plan of the site and label where each of the signs are and whetehr they are illuminated, what size they are , how far off ground etc

 

looking on google I see no signage at the entrance to the land from the public highway so that helps you to argue that you werent offered a contract in the first place so you cant breach something that doesnt exist.

 

their claim is the usual utter rubbish they like to put forward, it fails to meet the test for a coherent POC for several reason and you can have a pop at them for that when you write you outline defence in a couple of weeks time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your defence is due by 4pm friday

hows this going?

 

dx

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2019 at 20:24, dx100uk said:

can you show us please where any of the court paperwork states you are being taken to court for a parking FINE please?

Hi DX100uk, 

Apart from whats in the particulars of the claim, there isn't anything else where it says parking fines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi eircsbrother,

I am not sure who was driving the car at that moment as lots of people use my car. you are right! there are no signs at the entrance and where there is sign, its very very poorly displayed. 

I am working on the defence, should be able to share with you shortly

 

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Amis95 said:

Hi DX100uk, 

Apart from whats in the particulars of the claim, there isn't anything else where it says parking fines

what do you mean 'anything else/?

 

so where does it say its a FINE please?


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dx100uk said:

what do you mean 'anything else/?

 

so where does it say its a FINE please?

Hi  dx100uk,

in all the letters (NTK,  DRP and Gladstone) it refers to as parking charge, no where in these letters it says parking fine.  the only court letter I received is the claim form and  i have noted above what it says in the particulars of claim. everything else on the claim form is standard information.  I may be miss understanding your question? sorry if I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dx has a thing about people, including the press, calling them parking fines when they're parking charges, as you say. Parking companies like to try and confuse people so that they're more likely to pay their speculative invoices.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh I see thanks honeybee13

 

Hi Guys,

I have drafter the defence, I welcome your feedback: 

In The County Court 
Claim No: XXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the parking charge within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to. 

5. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’. 

6. The Claimant is put to strict 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, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

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

Name xxxxxxxxx
Signature xxxxxxxxx
Date xxxxxxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what I was eluding too was this comment in your 1st line of your very 1st post 2 weeks ago

 

I received a claim form from County Court Business Centre, Northampton for Private parking fine I received back in June 2018.

 

you then replied 24hrs ago saying there is 'nothing else' that says fine in it...but not referring to WHERE you got the original impression from that caused you to use that word.

 

.this is not a county court claim for a PCN issued by council/police ....a PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE = a FINE,

county courts do not deal with PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES [that would be a magistrates court] so thus you cant get a CCJ for a PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE...so thus..

its a speculative invoice [parking charge notice] issued by a private parking company 

 

now if you are not now understanding that having said you have read up on things in the last two weeks...you could be getting your defence woefully wrong.

 

so ensure you post it up here 1st ….

 

did you send the CPR off to Gladdies

 

now I can see your defence you are understanding things ..good!

 

but slim that don't 

don't bring up everything yet, just the std 2 or 3 lines we normally advise, leave the rest for your Witness statement, should the claim progress that far and they don't back out before then.

 

dx

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you dx100uk,

I now understand the Penalty vs Parking charge as you explained it very well. 

I have been reading up as much as I could to put the draft defence together. what do you recommend  cut and keep?

thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slim that down

don't bring up everything yet, just the std 2 or 3 lines we normally advise, leave the rest for your Witness statement, should the claim progress that far and they don't back out before then.

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as for your outline defence, 

if you werent the driver at the time then say so and they will have to prove a keeper liability under the POFA was created and this claim doesnt go there so as you say, a lack of a cause for action against you as the keeper.

 

point 5 is a moot point as they will argue that a scrap of paper can be a contract.

Now have you asked the council if they have planning permission for their signs and equipment?

No PP, illegal activity and thus no contract can ever be formed.

Unless you know again drop the point for the moment and just say that no contract was offered to be breached

 

drop point 6 unless you know about their contract with the landlord.

By all means you demand sight of this contract in a CPR 31.14 request for documents and then say they have failed to produce this when they ignore you. You can reintroduce this point later when each party has to exchange documents they rely on as evidence but premature at this stage.

 

point 7 make it clear that they can only claim these extra contractual charges from the DRIVER (and only if they mention additional costs on their signage) and as that was not you they become an unlawful penalty

 

look at pankbvelvet's case and crib the dismissal summary from that and quote the case details so it makes it easier to have the claim chucked out as it is a  "roboclaim" from Gladdys designed to save them having to do any work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ericsbrother,

 

where can I find the pankbvelvey case? Can I add that in the WS rather than here? thank you for the valuable feedback. I am about to post the revised version of the defence,

 

thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, 

 

I have cut it down and took your feedback. I was thinking to add the pinkbvelvet case at WS stage as well as the rest of the points.

 

planning to submit it tomorrow morning.

 

In The County Court 

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Between

UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________


1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

 

2. 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.
 

3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen.

 

4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the parking charge within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to.

5. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

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

Name xxxxxxxxx
Signature xxxxxxxxx
Date xxxxxxx

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take out the so's

its not a replacement for a comma.

 

dx

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you admitting you were the driver? if not you need to rewite this and forcefully state you werent the driver at the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ericsbrother, I am not sure who the driver was, it a year ago and lots of people borrow my car on a regular basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then that's good.

just state you were not the driver that's all.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then you deny being the driver at the time. that means they can only chase you as the keeper IF they have met all of the conditions of the POFA to create such a liability and they are unlikely to have done so.

 

Whatever you do, dont play grandmothers footsteps with the driver thing by saying " I cant remember" or "it may have been anyone in my family", the judge will then decide that you are mucking about and on the balance of probability it was you.

By denying it outright from the very beginning they have to prove it was you or show that a keeper liability was created.

 

now if there IS a keeper liability they cant claim for the £60 additional costs as the POFA expressly forbids it as only the driver could have read the signage so all they can claim is the amount on the NTK.

they know this but again hope that you dont and they then get it by default if they win.

 

when you point out this unlawful penalty it normally means they lose all of their costs claim even if you have to pay the original £100. but the reality is it is just another piece of evidence the claim is without foundation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ericsbrother, 

 

I completely get your point. I actually wasn't the driver but what do I say when I am asked who s the driver? because I actually can't just blame it on anyone. 

 

I have made it clear no keeper liability, and the £60 double recovery too. I had some extended feedback from MSE and their view is slightly opposite to CAG as they are saying I have to include all the points in the defence otherwise I won't be able to bring new points to the table at WS stage. So they have given me extra points to add.

 

I have now submitted it. hope it's ok. Thank you guys for such valuable feedback and taking your time to support me. without you, i probably would have paid it by now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was the final version submitted today:

 

In The County Court 

Claim No: ____________

Between

UK Car Park Management Limited (Claimant)

-and-

_________ (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________


1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number _____ on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
 

2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability, no cause for action against the defendant. The claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone.


3. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct as no enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant, no cause for action can have arisen.
 

4. The Claimant also stated in the Particulars of Claim that ‘the driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the parking charge within 28 days of issue yet failed to do so’. However, the claimant has failed to provide evidence of that agreement and failed to identify who the driver that it is referring to.

 

5. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.


6. The Claimant is put to strict 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, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

 

8. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

 

9. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

 

10. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

 

11. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

 

12. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

 

13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

 

14. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order by Judge Tailor and DJ Grand was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and stating that: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

 

15. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

 

16. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

 

17. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

Statement of Truth:

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

______


12th July 2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good grief we never said open up all those cans of worms in a defence

99% of that is for your WS if the claim ever gets that far..

 

your brief one in post 17 was just about the limit.

 

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...