Lbc Gladstones advice pls - Fluttering ticket

beamerguy · 13 March 2017 at 5:39PM

Yet another load of junk from Gladstones. Are they now employing school kids to write their letters.

So, if they are not going to enter into further correspondence, best to pre warn them that in view of their denial, you will now rely on the judge to obtain the answers required.

Sounds like this is going to be yet another case that will be published by the Parking Prankster

"LINK PARKING ... YOU HAVE BEEN GLADSTONED"

Coupon-mad · 13 March 2017 at 6:48PM

Dear Gladstones,

It is well known that fluttering ticket cases when appealed to Councils with proof of paying & displaying are generally accepted. Councils do not protest that ''to waive one charge on the basis put forward it would open the floodgates to the waiver of many more charges, making the parking management process that has been put in place entirely redundant''. Your suggestion that carmageddon would result, is ludicrous and typical of this greedy industry.

In private car parks such as this one where your ATA member/client frequents, it is widely believed (known even to the DCLG, now) that there is almost always no genuine 'parking management' in place. Your response demanding money under these circumstances is spurious and your blanket reliance upon the more complex Beavis case is ''entirely redundant''.

yours faithfully,

Gemwill · 14 March 2017 at 12:30AM

I have edited post #3 as can now post links.

Whilst my defence will look at frustrated contract - no issue of compliant tickets, I would love some pointers with the signs please.

Thanks Coupon-mad will draft it up tomorrow

Gemwill · 15 March 2017 at 12:45AM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Dear Gladstones,

It is well known that fluttering ticket cases when appealed to Councils with proof of paying & displaying are generally accepted. Councils do not protest that ''to waive one charge on the basis put forward it would open the floodgates to the waiver of many more charges, making the parking management process that has been put in place entirely redundant''. Your suggestion that carmageddon would result, is ludicrous and typical of this greedy industry.

In private car parks such as this one where your ATA member/client frequents, it is widely believed (known even to the DCLG, now) that there is almost always no genuine 'parking management' in place. Your response demanding money under these circumstances is spurious and your blanket reliance upon the more complex Beavis case is ''entirely redundant''.

yours faithfully,

Hi coupon-mad
Just a quick one please, do you think I should add anymore? Wondering if this is my last communication before court action should I ask for signs, layout etc?
Thank you

The_Deep · 15 March 2017 at 11:36AM

you will likely lose then they will try to use that flawed decision in their favour at court.

If they do, it is very easy to rebut. It is anonymous, not in accordance with government guidelines, and turns the usual rules on their head. IMO an adverse decision by the IPC poodle is a plus for you.

Gemwill · 24 March 2017 at 11:59AM

As I am starting to draft up my defence and then will post for advice, can anyone please have a look at the signs and advise me on wording - not a contractual offer or any other issues you can spot with the signs.
Thank you

Gemwill wrote: »

I was naive and assumed i was doing it right. Hard lesson ��

Edited as can now post links
Signs etc
This is the only sign I seen before I purchased a ticket, no reference to link or to other signs
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dtkozplrv0za29y/20170114_210305.jpg?dl=0

Entrance sign no terms and no reference to other signs
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5hq7hhthee6fmv/FB_IMG_1483101243006.jpg?dl=0

Return visit to car park to take photos - seen on boundary wall mentions £50 at bottom
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x9c60q9d29a3rzr/20170307_151741.jpg?dl=0

Few meters from sign above, £50 wording removed/changed
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j7hzqqsodnel1oj/20170307_151809.jpg?dl=0

Coupon-mad · 24 March 2017 at 3:04PM

Bumping for others to see.

Gemwill · 26 March 2017 at 1:49PM

Cheeky bump x

Fruitcake · 26 March 2017 at 3:12PM

Have a look at the info here by the Parking-Prankster. The court case quoted should be referred to in your defence.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=sticky

Fruitcake · 26 March 2017 at 3:15PM

Gemwill wrote: »

As I am starting to draft up my defence and then will post for advice, can anyone please have a look at the signs and advise me on wording - not a contractual offer or any other issues you can spot with the signs.
Thank you

Core terms including the £100 charge are in tiny font and thus are not saved by the signs in the Beavis case.
See the inadequate signage template appeal point in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread.

The use of premium rate 'phone members is prohibited.

It looks like something may have been stuck onto those signs at some undetermined point in the past. I wonder what they say underneath, and whether the Ts and Cs underneath were in force at the time of the alleged event as opposed to what they say now. :whistle:

Have you had a look at the IPC CoP to see what it says about signs, their font size, and premium rate 'phone numbers? The BPA CoP is quite specific about this, but I am not familiar with the IPC sham CoP though.

Lbc Gladstones advice pls - Fluttering ticket

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free