letter before claim from Gladstone Solicitors

[charitynjw]

11. The IAS is a trading name of the IPC, whose Directors are Will Hurley and John Davies. These Directors, having overseen my IAS appeal being unfairly refused, have now filed this claim because they are also the directors of Gladstones solicitors. It is submitted that this chain of events is founded upon a conflict of interest and operates in breach of the CPUTRs and is contrary to good faith.

Not correct

The Independent Appeals Service is trading style of United Trade and Industry Ltd, Registered in England and Wales (08248531), 41 Greek Street, Stockport, Cheshire, England, SK3 8AX
Registered Data Controller: ICO number Z3417654

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...48531/officers

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...35449/officers

It's a tangled web.........

[Twinnies]

Not correct



https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...48531/officers

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...35449/officers

It's a tangled web.........

Hi

Thanks for your reply.

I will delete this paragraph. Is the rest of the defence ok for me to submit.

Many thanks

[Twinnies]

Hi

The deadline is approaching very fast! I am getting nervous day by day.

Your urgent replies are highly appreciated.

Many thanks

[charitynjw]

Dear All

I have sent CPR 31.14 on 2nd July 2019, to which I have not received any reply.

Yesterday, I had attended the place where my car was parked to take some photographs and realised that the road name is different from what the CPM and Gladstone Solicitors are alleging. I have taken photographs of the full site, clearly showing the road name and the place where my car was parked!

I had drafted my defence last week (got some information on defence from this and other sites). I have today made some amendments (which are in bold) due to the new evidence. Kindly read it for me and let me know if there are any changes to make. As I understand I may need to remove some paragraphs.

Your replies are highly appreciated. As soon as I receive them, I will make changes immediately and submit it before the deadline which is on Friday, the 12th July 2019.




IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM No. DXXXXXXX
BETWEEN
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (CLAIMANT)

-and-

TWINNIES (DEFENDANT)

________
DEFENCE
________

1. I am the Defendant, ……, DOB …….., and reside at ……… and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event.

2. Save as specifically admitted in this defence the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the Particulars of Claim or implied in Pre-action correspondence.


Preliminary matters:


1. The alleged penalty charge produced by the Claimants is false. The road that the alleged incident took place was on Harewood Terrace and not Blandford Road….. I will produce photographic evidence of the site that accurately shows the road and the area where the car was stopped.

2. The Claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer). The Claimant is trying to enforce an unfair contract as per ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999’ & ‘Unfair Contract Terms.

3. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed, the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities, and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way. I have asked questions in the form of a Part 18 request but have not received any response.

4. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and 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.
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:

5. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed private road where I had pulled over, not parked. I was completely unaware that the site was 'private land' or being enforced by any restrictive terms, due to insufficient signage. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'private land'. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.

6. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

7. The site signs are not capable of forming a contract with the driver according to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 as the Notice to Keeper only states a discrete time, not a period of time. A parking charge for a period of parking cannot apply to the stopping a vehicle.

8. My intentions of stopping there were purely due to the breakdown of the car and not to park. This being both unforseen & unavoidable, any alleged unilateral contract imposed by UKCPM would be frustrated by a supervening event.

[Renumber]
I had not seen any signs at the entrance, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000, a case won by the consumer on appeal where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.

9. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

10. I submit that the IAS decision should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS but the publication 'Parking Review' reported that only 20% of appeals were upheld (compared to POPLA where 50% have consistently been upheld since its inception in 2012). There is no scrutiny board, unlike POPLA. The IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice.

[Paragraph deleted - Renumber]

12. Even if the court is minded to accept that a sign was visible, the wording on the sign was prohibitive. Unlike in the Beavis case, the Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’. A purported licence to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a ‘charge’ on the one hand, cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, expressly prohibited in the signage wording. This does not create any possible contract.

13. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

14. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

15. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

16. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

17. I refer to case Vehicle Services Ltd vs Ibbotson (2012) in which it was agreed that a private parking firm was responsible for mitigating any loss. The parking operative had every opportunity to consider the facts of my circumstances of this specific alleged incident but failed to do so.

18. The Claimant considers there charges not extravagant or unconscionable by referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis. However, I fail to see any similarity between this and my case. There is no contract with the registered keeper as per ‘The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations 2013.

19. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable, vexatious *and is based on dishonesty. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

20. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

21. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.



Signature

Date



Regards

Some suggestions.

*I'm not sure I'd go so far as to assert dishonesty.

[Twinnies]

Some suggestions.

*I'm not sure I'd go so far as to assert dishonesty.

Hi

Thank you very much for the amendments. I am very grateful and appreciate it very much!

I will make the amendments and submit it today. I will be away for sometime taking my children abroad. Can I mention that in my covering letter to the courts? As I am not sure what is the next step.

Also, do I need to send a copy of the defence to Gladstone Solicitors also?


Regards

[charitynjw]

Are you submitting the defence via MCOL?

[Twinnies]

Are you submitting the defence via MCOL?

Hi

I haven't submitted it yet. I am thinking of emailing it to them today and also will be forwarding the original via special delivery to reach them by tomorrow.
Would you recommend submitting via MCOL?

Regards

[MIKE770]

MCOL better for the records

[charitynjw]

MCOL better for the records

As MIKE770 states, MCOL is probably more convenient, but you are limited in the number of characters used in the online response form.

[Twinnies]

Hi

Thank you CHARITYNJW and MIKE770 for your responses.

I sent my defence by email and by special delivery as had problems with MCOL due to word count.
I have received acknowledgement from the Courts and also received letter from Gladstones Solicitors enclosing Directions Questionnaire. I have attached a copy of the letter for your reference.

Kindly advise.

Many thanks

[ostell]

You note that they have asked for a paper only hearing. You must object to this as it puts you at a disadvantage as a litigant in person. There are some scripts around about this. You want the hearing at your local court

[Twinnies]

You note that they have asked for a paper only hearing. You must object to this as it puts you at a disadvantage as a litigant in person. There are some scripts around about this. You want the hearing at your local court

Hi

Thanks OSTELL for your reply.

I have drafted a reply. Kindly advise if anything needs adding or deleted.



Dear Sirs

RE: Claim No.

The defendant opposes the claimants request for special direction and requests this to be transferred to the defendant’s home Court (Staines County Court) for an oral hearing. The defendant strongly objects this case be heard on paper as the matter in hand is anything but straightforward. As the facts of the case are in dispute, I believe it important to be able to orally challenge the claimant, and any witness statement they may file later.


Gladstones Solicitors have a record of filing incorrect documents in court. In Link Parking v Cowles B5GF95H3, Chippenham Court, 24/11/2015 in front of DJ Asplin, it was found that a witness statement prepared by Gladstones solicitors and signed by Martin Gardner of Link Parking, contained false information. Martin Gardner admitted signing the witness statement before it was fully prepared.


It is also noted that Gladstones Solicitor’s regular behaviour is to ambush Defendants in court by failing to provide any information until the last minute. It is also noted that Gladstone Solicitors have regularly ignored the court process by attempting to file new legal arguments in their witness statement at the last minute. I therefore wish to be able to challenge whatever information is filed should I disagree. For all these reasons, I request that an oral hearing is held.
Please also note that I will not be available from ……………….. 2019 till ………………2019. I will be abroad and would not be able to receive any postal correspondence in this regard.

Kindly avoid the above dates for the hearing.
I thank you in advance for your kind co-operation.

Yours faithfully

[Twinnies]

Hi

Do I also need to complete N180?

Many thanks

[Twinnies]

Hi

I have attached Directions Questionnaire that I received from Gladstones Solicitors.
Your urgent reply is very much appreciated as I will not be available from 21st July. I am hoping to get this sorted before then. DQ2.jpgDQ3.jpg

Many thanks

[charitynjw]

That DQ from Gladstones is for information only.

You should shortly be receiving your own DQ from the court, which you complete & return & send a copy to the other party (via their legal rep).
Make sure you do so by the deadline which will be in the court's directions.
& get proof of sending.