LPS/Gladstones Windscreen claimform - walked off site - Regent retail park, Loughborough, LE11 5PF

[ceeferace]

Name of the Claimant Local Parking Security Ltd

claimants Solicitors: Gladstones Solicitors 

 

Date of issue – 11th November 2019

 

Defence due: 13th December 2019

 

1.The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXX (the "vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the "contract") at Regent retail park (off-site) - Regent retail park, Loughborough, LE11 5PF on 16/09/18 thus incurring the parking charge (PCN).

 

2.The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue.

 

3.The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant s the driver/keeper of the vehicle. Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

 

4.The claimant claims £85 for the PCN, £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £12.40 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum continuing at £0,03 per day. 

 

Value of the claim: £232.40

 

I sent a SAR to Local Parking Security Ltd who initially refused but have today sent photographs of my car parked.

 

We did park in the car park and did not exceed the 2 hour limit.

They are claiming that we went off-site but have no evidence to say that we did. 

 

We assumed that this was an error and ignored the calls and letters from the company but have now received this.

My husband did speak to them on the phone and explained that we went to a food outlet on the site but they were not interested. 

 

 

 

 

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

Do you have a previous thread on this? If so, could you link us to it please?

 

HB

[ceeferace]

No I don't have a previous thread on this. 

[brassnecked]

Shame you ignored the Letter of Claim, did you send an appeal at all?  Best acknowledge the claim on line at MCOL. follow the steps on this sticky

 

 

Gladstones POC is usually vague and as ANPR cannot catch a person leaving a site they have dropped themselves in it with GDPR as they would

be following a person with CCTV a no no for ANPR which just logs a car on and off. Do you have a bank statement showing a purchase from an outlet on the site if no reciept, all is not lost even at this stage, others will be along with further advice.

 

 

[ceeferace]

Thanks, we have already acknowledged and are now trying to write the defence. 

 

The site is managed by a person rather than ANPR so it was a sticker on the windscreen. We used cash and had no receipt and to be honest just assumed it was an error and would all be ok once we called to explain. 

[brassnecked]

Could you get pictures of the signage at the entrance and on the site, and post them up as a multipge pdf, I'm sure others her will have some suggestions, and leaving the site is a dodgy one to try to sue on, as what evidence do they have, the attendant filming you leaving?

[ceeferace]

I will get some pictures ASAP. I hadn’t thought to get pictures as the dispute was about us leaving the site. 

 

They sent to response to the SAR today and I did wonder if they had pictures of us etc but they just have 5 pictures of the car within a 15 min timeframe with the sticker on the windscreen. 

 

The car park is free for up

to 2 hours for customers using the outlets. We were there for around an hour.  

[FTMDave]

I know it was over a year ago, but can you remember what you purchased and the name of the shop?  Even if you paid by cash, purchases can still be tracked down. 

[dx100uk]

so this was a windscreen PCN for the driver walking off the site?

 

scan up all the paperwork you have had to date and ignored to date 

including the front page of the letter of claim and the windscreen ticket.

 

you've been here long enough and have known about this PCN long enough to have read cag to conclude you should  NOT to have ignored the letter of claim

 

 

 

you have acknowledged the claim on MCOL [AOS]??

and sent a CPR 31:14?

 

your defence is due Friday by 4pm

[ceeferace]

Yes, AOS done. I sent an SAR is that the same? 

 

Yes, a windscreen PCN for walking off site.

I don’t have any of the paperwork sent previously. In the past when I’ve had similar tickets I was advised to ignore them, which is what I did. 

 

not by this site, and many years ago 

 

I threw the paperwork away, this is what I received from the parking company in response to the SAR. 

 

Am I along the right lines?

DEFENCE

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

2.The claimant is pursuing the registered keeper on the assumption that they were also the driver. 

3. There is no such obligation in law to identify the driver and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

4. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The claimant states that the registered keeper was "off-site" and have been unable to provide details of his this assumption has been made. The defendant used the KFC outlet situated on the site at the time of the parking charge. 

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. No signage is attached to the main entrance of the car park and therefore the driver did not enter any contract with the claimant. (To be checked).

7. Upon inspection of the signs after receiving the charge notice, the signage is unclear, they are located at a distance and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The signs do not comply with BPA Code of Practice.

8.Furthermore such is the density and complexity of the text on the sign that the most onerous term – the parking charge – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule (to be checked) 

9. The POFA, 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12.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.

13. 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. 

14. 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. 

15. 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.

16. 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 was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''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...''

17. 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.

18. 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. 

19. 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 believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name 

Signature


Date

SAR return.pdf

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

If you click on SAR, it has information and you'll see that you send it to the parking company.

 

AOS is to the court.

 

HB

 

4 hours ago, ceeferace said:

Yes, a windscreen PCN for walking off site.

I don’t have any of the paperwork sent previously. In the past when I’ve had similar tickets I was advised to ignore them, which is what I did. 

 

 

We wouldn't have adivsed to ignore a Letter Before Claim/Action.

 

HB

 

That reads like a witness statement. If you've just filed your AoS, you need a short defence which will normally be a few lines. There are plenty on other parking court cases.

 

HB

 

That reply to the SAR doesn't seem very detailed, but I've never seen a reply from a PPC before. Do you remember if you had a ticket on the windscreen on the day?

 

HB

[ceeferace]

Yes, we had a ticket. It was nearly 18 months ago and we heard nothing for a long time so didn’t keep it.

 

they sent those letters in response to the SAR and 5 pictures of the car. 

[brassnecked]

The ticket states for not displaying a valid ticket, isn't it free for 2 hours?   POC seems ambiguous as to reason.  I think the experts, like ericsbrother, and others will be able to dissect this forensically, Defence as HB says only needs 3 lines at this stage.

[ceeferace]

Can I email the CPR to the solicitor or would you advise to post it?

They already have my email as I sent the SAR by email to the claimant and emailed then to request they stop processing the data (they refused). 

Scanbot_10_Dec_2019_09.34.pdf

[brassnecked]

Stop using email, and block them, they have a nasty habit of using email to send things 11:59 pm day before hearing too late for you to respond.  Send it by post with a free proof of posting, is deemed received 3rd day by First Class post.

[ceeferace]

24 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Stop using email, and block them, they have a nasty habit of using email to send things 11:59 pm day before hearing too late for you to respond.  Send it by post with a free proof of posting, is deemed received 3rd day by First Class post.

 

Will get to the post office now and avoid email. 

Draft defence, feedback much appreciated; 

 

I am the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim. The particulars of the Claim disclose no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:

 

1.    It is denied that the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at Regents Retail Park on 16^thSeptember 2018. 

 

2.    No contract was formed or agreed between the registered keeper and Local Parking Security Limited. The contract between Local Parking Security Limited and the Landowner which gives Local Parking Security Limited the right to enter into contracts with the public has been requested and has not yet been supplied.

 

 

3.    This claim is has no legal standing and the case is requested to be dismissed under CPR 3.4.

[dx100uk]

so not for walking off site but no ticket.

 

defence is almost there.

let EB clarify, you have till friday

 

[ceeferace]

Could someone please take a quick look at my defence please so that I can send this evening. 

 

On 10/12/2019 at 11:32, dx100uk said:

so not for walking off site but no ticket.

 

defence is almost there.

let EB clarify, you have till friday

 

 

claim form says off-site but the ticket said not displaying a ticket. No ticket is needed if you are using the retail park. 

[brassnecked]

Must be one or the other parking was free  so their evidence of the  written ticket ticket contradicts the reason for the Charge in their RobOclaim POC, hopefully EB will be in later with an opinion.

[dx100uk]

is post 1 the POC as EXACTLY written please 

doesn't say off site ??

 

[ceeferace]

 

Yes;

.The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXX (the "vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the "contract") at Regent retail park (off-site) - Regent retail park, Loughborough, LE11 5PF on 16/09/18 thus incurring the  parking charge (PCN).

[dx100uk]

read VCS v Ibbotson

[ericsbrother]

The POFA makes it clear that they have to say what the breach is on both the screen ticket and the NTK.

Now their claim is using autofill to avoid this problematical dichotomy so you need to ram it home but not yet.

 

All you need is a short denial of a breach of contract and thus no clause for action against you or anyone else.

I would also drop all of the flowery language that you have found online,

no-one down my pub speaks like that so common english please.

 

We need to see the wording of the signs to make sense of anything they claim and it will make it easier to rubbish then.

At the moment they havent said what it is you have done to make them sue you and although this is a starter for 10 to bite them with it will be wise to have a bit more but no need to write a book just to say "I didnt do it guv"

 

Their NTK is not POFA complaint as it doesnt say who the creditor is ( funny they cant even copy 2 lines of text from the POFA) so no keeper liability Against

 

you will need to aquaint yourself with the wording of the POFA very thoroughly by the time this gets to court (if it does) as many judges havent read it but think they know what it says and make bad decisions based on their beliefs rather than the law so you need to educate yours and get the right decision.

 

Also look at the ticket/NTK and match exactly the relevant land with the description. 

My reading of "off site" means a roadway or similar rtaher than an enclosed car park so show a doubt as to where and they lose again

[ceeferace]

Thank you, I have uploaded pictures of the signs;

 

How about;

 

I am the defendant and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

The particulars of the Claim disclose no cause of action on the following grounds:

 

1.    It is denied that the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at Regents Retail Park on 16thSeptember 2018. 

 

2.    No contract was formed or agreed between the registered keeper and Local Parking Security Limited. 

 

 

3.    This claim is has no clause of action against the defendant or anyone else. 

[dx100uk]

top line

i am the registered keeper of vehicle reg XXXXXX [ replace the defendant bit] ...and deny..

 

re 1 never say registered keeper. say the driver 

same for 2