Source: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=77f8679903242bc258eee8e038510616&showtopic=109297&st=20&start=20
Timestamp: 2018-02-22 01:12:39
Document Index: 387952317

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 16', 'art16', 'art07', 'art16', 'art16', 'art 16']

Thu, 4 May 2017 - 13:58
@nosferatu1001 thank you for the prompt reply.
I will do like you said within the next couple of hours.
Yes I sent the letter first class recorded.
Are you having problems seeing the pictures that I have embedded? I am using postimage.io, if you click on the thumbnail, it will open a new window and the picture will be shown on full screen, if you want the picture even in higher resolution then just click again on the picture while on full screen and it will show it zoomed in.
IF you use any other site for pictures then let me know and I'll use that from now on.
So I have completed only this section
-Acknowledgment of Service
If I understand this correctly, I don't need to do anything with the "Response Forms" at the moment right?
This post has been edited by cpu2007: Thu, 4 May 2017 - 14:06
Thu, 4 May 2017 - 14:30
A lot of employers block sites such as that - thats all it was.
Did they recieve your letter? WHat date. Do you have proof of that still? Take screenshots from website as needed.
You do nothing with the forms, ever. Theyre a terrible way to file a defence. You will either email a PDF of your defence in or send it by post, printed out.
Get cracking with your defence. Post here for critique.
Thu, 4 May 2017 - 14:48
Just checked when they read it. They received the letter on the 2nd of May and this Claim form that I have received is dated as the 2nd of May as well.
Thu, 4 May 2017 - 15:13
Add to your court defence, near the top, that the claimant has behaved unreasonably by filing a claim within X days of issuing the letter before action, breaching the CPRs.
Get on with the defence. Show us your working.
Tue, 9 May 2017 - 23:30
I am not 100% sure what version to go with
In the letter I have sent to them, I am stating that they have not provided enough information for me to understand what parking charge notice they are on about
and my court defence is based on that
On the 16th of April (dated 12th of April 2017), I have received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors in regards to a Parking Charge Notice issued on 11/08/2016 on Mason Street, Manchester.
Unfortunately, the letter did not provide any information about the apparent contravention and therefore I was unable to respond adequately as Gladstones failed to provide detailed evidence of the case in the letter before claim they sent me.
I sent Gladstone a response asking them to provide further details on this matter so I can respond adequately, a response that was sent by post and it was recorded, this letter was received by Gladstones on the 2nd of May but they never responded.
However, Gladstones decided to send me a claim form, which again lacks of information in regards to this case.
I urge Gladstones to provide all the relevant documentation/evidence and correspondences in regards to this matter so that I can defend myself in court.
However, I do have screenshot of of the day i paid by phone, should I include them or not?
Wed, 10 May 2017 - 10:33
That is not a defence!
Have you looked at other defences on here? THey are a set of LEGAL ARGUMENTS why you are not liable to the claimant
You DO NOT include documents such as photos, copies of letters etc here.
Time is ticking - get to the 2017 defences on here, of which there are manym, anbd post YOUR version up. If you have SPECIFIC questions ask them, but not until youve done a little bit of leg work yoursedlf.
Wed, 10 May 2017 - 21:25
I am having issues finding the right defence
I went through a few and copied a few of the paragraphs, which I believe apply to my case
If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
(I have looked at 7.3 but this section is talking about something else, can someone point out what section explains the paragraph above?)
In accordance with Civil Procedure Rules, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.
The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor any commercial justification.
No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.
Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant has not supplied evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued and has also not issued a Notice to Keeper. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The Defendant once again invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.
As mentioned above, some of the paragraphs mention the section that is being breached by the claimant but when I search for that section (e.g 7.3), that's not what the section is discussing.
So if someone can tell me what laws/rules are being extrapolated
I've used the following sites to search for those rules
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...il/rules/part16
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...ules/part07#7.4
Thu, 11 May 2017 - 18:29
any help on whether this defence is valid for my case?thanks
Thu, 11 May 2017 - 23:44
It isn't laid out as every defence. Numbered paragraphs for a start
Have you read and understood it yourself?
Mon, 15 May 2017 - 11:12
I haven't numbered it yet because I'm still trying to see what can be included/excluded
Those are the points that have understood and believe are related to my case.
However, like I said earlier, some of the references don't make any sense to me.
"If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4"
In my case there was no copy of the PCN attached to the claim court or letter before claim that I could have relied on and that's what I used the statement above, however when I go to 7.3 of the particular on the government website, I don't see 7.3 discussing this topic but something else.
Mon, 15 May 2017 - 11:19
Thats because your not looking at Practice Direction 16, section 7.3
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure...art16/pd_part16
Hence why you show WHERE youre going when you say something isnt matching. Makes it easier to spot the error
Mon, 15 May 2017 - 11:30
Great that makes sense now. I'll keep that in mind next time. Thanks
Here's my defense
1) The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre-court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim.
1a) If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then1 under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
1b) In accordance with Civil Procedure Rules, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear cause of action.
2) The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor any commercial justification.
2a) No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
2b) The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "Legal Representatives Costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver.
3) Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant has not supplied evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued and has also not issued a Notice to Keeper. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The Defendant once again invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.
Mon, 15 May 2017 - 11:52
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 4 May 2017 - 16:13)
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 15 May 2017 - 12:52)
Thanks, once I added that statement, do you think my defense is strong? what should be my next move?
Tue, 16 May 2017 - 06:21
Its missing the usual meat of a defence
You have failure to follow POFA yes, but youve then talked about no GPEOL. This is a red flag for the judge to cry "Beavis!!" and dismiss your defence. You msut look at MUCH more recent defences, and stick away from loss. if you do need to talk about loss, then make sure you state WHY Beavis not only doesnt help the PPC, it in fact helps YOU by showing the Penalty Rule is still engaged.
Tue, 16 May 2017 - 08:31
Thank you, I am trying to go through some recent defenses but can't find any. can you send me some links please?
I have acknowledged the claim but how long I have left before i can send the defense?
Tue, 16 May 2017 - 08:43
Post #19 on here for example
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106641
The 19th post on the link you've provided has points that I don't see being applied to my case
1.	The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contain no detail and divulge no cause of action. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about, why the charge arose or what the alleged contract was. There is nothing that provides a basis for understanding why the claimant has asked the court to to order the payment. According to the original parking notice, the claimant appears to be accusing the defendant of trespassing on his own property. The Defendant invites the court to use its case management powers to strike out the case as having disclosed no cause of action.
2 The parking space has been leased by the defendant since 2014. The defendant is absolutely entitled to unrestricted parking in that space. The defendant displays a permit to assist the claimant's operatives to recognise his vehicle but the terms of his lease impose no requirement to make any payment to the claimant if the permit is not seen.
3 The party that the defendant believes to have contracted with the claimant cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the defendant's lease. The defendant has never agreed to any alteration of its terms that would result in the claimant having any right to dictate the conditions to use his own property. The defendant has the reasonable belief that he can at any time withdraw the implied permission for the claimant's operative to enter his parking space to inspect his permit and that, if he continued to do so, it would amount to trespass and tortious interference with the quiet enjoyment of the defendant's property.
4 The claimant is a mere contractor and does not have occupational possession of the parking space. It therefore lacks any legal capacity unless specifically provided for in its contract.
5 Even if the claimant had such legal capacity it is not within its power to offer, as a contract to the defendant, permission to exercise a right that he already possesses.
6 Notwithstanding that the Particulars of Claim disclose no basis for the claim, the Claimant's original parking notice assert that the driver overstayed and therefore trespassed.
Only a party with occupational possession can bring a claim for trespass. As this is the defendant himself, the claimant's demand for payment in such an event is nonsense.
7 The claimant might argue that the Supreme Court's decision in ParkingEye v Beavis is applicable. Contrary to such an assertion, the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The obvious difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such public interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions on a lease-holder using his own property.
8 Notwithstanding that the defendant neither admits nor denies that he was driving, the claimant has failed to meet the conditions of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue him as the registered keeper of the vehicle
1. I already have that.
2. Not applied (The defendant here is talking about a long period lease, which does not apply to myself)
4. In my claim form the Claimant is stating that he is representing SIP parking, so this point can't be used against them?
5. As point 5
6. I don't have the original documents as my case is stating that I need all the documents/correspondences in order to prepare my defense, so can't use this.
7. I will be removing my points about charges in order to avoid Beavis decision.
8. Have it already
Wed, 17 May 2017 - 13:32
Ok here's my revised defense
4.	The charge is an unenforceable penalty, neither based upon a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor any commercial justification.
5.	If the Claimant is intending to pursue this claim against the Defendant on the basis that the Defendant is the registered keeper then the Claimant has failed to show that the conditions for recovering this charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been met. The Defendant disputes that any of the conditions necessary for a claim to be pursued against the keeper of the vehicle have been met.
5.a No evidence has been provided to show a valid Notice to Driver was given to the driver in accordance with Paragraph 7, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
5.b. Where a Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 8, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
5.c. Where no Notice to Driver was given no evidence has been provided to show that a valid Notice to Keeper was served in accordance with Paragraph 9, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
5.d. No evidence has been provided to show that the Creditor has made a valid application for keepers details in accordance with Paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
6.	It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. They have failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder.
7.	Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant has not supplied evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued and has also not issued a Notice to Keeper. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The Defendant once again invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.
Wed, 17 May 2017 - 22:52
4 and 5 are completely and utterly relevant.
It is talking about the claimants standing, not the solicitors. Which you should understand because you've included a part about standing in your defence.
6) is the charge one for overstaying? If so then this Applies. they should have stated the reason for the claim
Your defence 4)- despite being told repeatedly, you've left in the shooting your self in the foot line about loss. Remove it.
You've managed to entirely omit that THEIR payment service meant the driver was delayed in making payment. Any reason why you haven't included it ?