Claim Form - PCM - Gladstones

[royjackson]

If they have evidence of me leaving premises is there anything for me to lose by filing such a defence? Apart from losing and paying the requested amount on claim- will there be any additional costs.

Can anyone point me to a defence based on this fact and that in the absence of any evidence provided to me I cannot accept the claim, Burden of proof etc

Can I use any other points, i.e how they have applied costs, their contract with landowner and maybe anything else I have missed. Or do I just keep it simple based on the fact of no evidence.

Finally if they did have such evidence are they not required to provide this to me prior to any hearing.

[ostell]

You could send a CPR 31.14 request to the solicitors top see what they have.

[royjackson]

I sent a CPR 31.14 request approx 2 weeks ago and no response as of yet. I have a certificate of posting to confirm I sent it.

Do they have to reply to this? And what does it mean if they don’t?

[ostell]

If they don't reply then you bring it up in your defence and ask the court to order the documents and ask permission to amend your defence when received and the cost to be met by the claimant.

[royjackson]

Thank you very much so far, gone from being defeated to attempting a defence.

So far my defence will be based on the fact I have not been provided with any evidence I left the petrol station or any clearly defined boundary and on the basis my request for a CPR 31.14 has not been responded to I cannot accept claim. I have certificate of posting sent to Gladstone’s solicitors for this which I’ll include in my defence if possible. Maybe I’ll try find some wording on burden of proof etc on my defence. Any suggestions/comments on this or other points I could use would be most welcome.

How about any defence based on how they have applied costs? Which so far are:

£100 pcn
£60 contractual costs
£7.20 interest
£25 court fee
£50 legal representatives costs

Total: £242.20

I am intending to send my defence in to the via moneyclaim website on weekend as I have deemed Tuesday 6th April my last day for filing defence (claim form issue date 3rd March 2021) I sent an acknowledgement of service via same website more then 5 days after being received.

[ostell]

You should be chasing the£60 contractual costs/ The others are legitimate.

Have a read of this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0 and include some the items mentioned in the case into yours

[royjackson]

On my original CPR 31.14 request to Gladstone solicitors I did not ask for video evidence of me leaving the premises as I only learnt I could of this later. I asked for contract, copies of signs, PCN and proof of authority as PCM are not the landholders.

My defence which I am intending to send tonight/tomorrow will be based on their failure to response to my CPR 31.14 request and double recovery due to £60 contractual costs that have added.

Any advice on how I go about tackling the fact that I have not requested video evidence showing me leaving premises?

[royjackson]

Claim Number:
BETWEEN:
Parking Control Management UK Ltd (Claimant)
Vs
(Defendant)
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Defence
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle with registration of which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper was parked at BP @@@@ on @@/@@/20. This particular petrol station is local to the Defendant as used regularly by him whether it be for fuel, the use of the on-site cash machine or car wash. As the alleged breach took place several months ago the Defendant cannot recall the exact events of the day bearing in mind the Defendant usually visits the petrol station for various services several times a month.
3. The Particulars of Claim does not state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. Further, the particulars of claim are very vague and lack suitable information as to the grounds for the Claimant’s case. They fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Furthermore, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as nothing is mentioned which specifies how the parking terms were breached. These assumptions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and therefore there is no liability towards the Defendant.
4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, 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. On the 15/03/2021 the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Gladstone Solicitors Ltd. I have evidence of this fact in the form of a certificate of posting. I requested the Claimant provide copies of contract, copies of signs, PCN and proof of authority as Parking Control Management are not the landholders. Copy of letter dated 15/03/2021 and certificate of posting attached.
6. Gladstone Solicitors has not sent any of these documents to the defendant and therefore the defendant requests the court to order the documents and also seeks permission to amend its defence accordingly and the cost to be met by the claimant.
7. The claimant’s Notice to Keeper indicates the Reason for Issue as ‘Parking in a parking area reserved for patrons whilst on the premises only’. No evidence has been provided to the defendant showing the claimant’s site boundary or the defendant actually leaving the site.
The signage does not demonstrate a map/boundary line or clear definition of the premises.
8. The burden of proof shifts to Parking Control Management (UK) limited to prove otherwise, and to explain why their attendant watched a driver or occupant walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary and yet made no attempt to stop/warn the driver or even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises, or confirm if they had used other entrances to the site.
9. The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012: District Judge McIlwaine stated 'you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?’ The Defendant contends that Parking Control management (uk) limited have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss. The Defendant requests the court to order the claimants and their solicitor, namely Gladstone solicitors to provide all evidence they wish to rely upon. The Defendant seeks permission to amend its defence accordingly and the cost to be met by the claimant.
10. 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. This claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
11. Overall the costs on the claim are disproportionate and are an abuse of process. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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:
The Judge stated:-
''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...''
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date

[royjackson]

Any thoughts/tips anyone on the above defence?

[ostell]

Further to 7 have you considered
https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab...inson.pdf?dl=0

Amongst other things this references Beavis and the statement of their lordships that the original charge, £85 at the time, was sufficient to cover any debt recovery costs

[royjackson]

Does anyone think its also worth adding this?

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims. That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued. The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

[ostell]

All is worth adding.

[MIKE770]

seems to me too much to read by judge, bullet points better, heard a few judges stating they have not all day to read streams of statement/defences and have to extract fact from possible fiction! ????

[royjackson]

Thanks Ostell, you truly have been amazing. I do take your point Mike770 as well and thank you, struggling a little to compress this into bullet points but ill try my best.

[ostell]

Bullet points to cover what you wish to say. To be expanded in court.