Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 8th Sep 16, 9:29 PM
    • 41Posts
    • 21Thanks
    spaceman8
    Claim form- PCM & Gladstones
    • #1
    • 8th Sep 16, 9:29 PM
    Claim form- PCM & Gladstones 8th Sep 16 at 9:29 PM
    Hi

    i need help. I've had claim form through the door. I've filed for acknowledgement of service to give me a little breathing room. A brief outline of the case.

    i was helping my brother move into his new flat in london.
    i followed and parked up behind the movie van outside his flat.
    just after i pulled in (it did say "loading bay") the PCM operator started taking photos of my car. i came out, tried to ask if it was ok to park here. (got no response),
    read the sign on the wall and promptly moved.

    a couple of weeks later i received a PCN, to which i appealed and was denied.
    after this i ignored everything that came up to this point. after reading some forums, i think i should have responded to the letter before claim.

    i need help as i really don't know what to do. not so good with the legal stuff.

    thank you
Page 4
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 8th Jan 17, 2:55 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    have i understood and argued this point correctly:

    "3. (Exhibit 1- Lease) The bay is neither a visitor’s parking space nor designated for the ‘sole use’ of another party. I was a person authorized by the leaseholder and therefore should have been exempt from any restrictions. "

    i don't know if i can win on this point as it says on the parking sign "this loading bay is for authorised vehicles actively loading and unloading whilst delivering to the commercial tenants of heath parade"

    should i take this point out?

    thank you
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 11th Jan 17, 8:01 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    hi

    so I've sent off my witness statement. Gladstone have just emailed me theirs it reads as:

    I, Georgina Philpot, OF The Courtyard, 1A Cranbourne Road, SL1 2XF WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:
    1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make
    this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own
    knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information
    supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from
    other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are following documents which my Company
    wishes to rely upon;
    i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as
    described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’)
    ii) The Sign (i.e. the Contract)
    iii) The Site Plan
    iv) Notices
    v) Photographs of the incident

    3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant
    Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the
    Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
    PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
    PM09407620
    17th January 2016
    Heath Parade - NW9
    Parked in restricted area

    Part 18 Request
    4. I have been advised that Gladstones Solicitors Ltd did receive a Part 18 Request from the
    Defendant on 16 September 2016, after the Claim had been issued and the Claim Form received
    by the Defendant. Paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 18 states that a “Request should be
    concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to
    enable the first party to prepare his own case or to understand the case he has to meet.” I
    respectfully submit the Defendant’s Part 18 Request was neither concise nor strictly confined
    and therefore the Claimant was not required to provide a response. The defendant would have
    been aware of the parking charge notice after receiving correspondence regarding it.
    Particulars of Claim

    5. The Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically
    provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of
    the Claim. In any event, I can confirm that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient
    information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to; namely:-
    i) The date of the charge;
    ii) The vehicle registration number;
    iii) The Parking Charge Notice number;
    iv) The amount outstanding;
    v) That is relates to parking charges; and
    vi) That it is debt.

    6. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with
    the Act and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the charge
    which is/are the subject of this claim.
    Did not see the signs/the terms are unfair

    7. The signs are independently audited by the IPC which is an accredited trade assocation within
    the parking sector. Therefore, my Company rejects any argument regarding the signs. My
    Company also rejects any argument that the Defendant did not see the sign. It is evident from
    the site plan that there are sufficient signs.

    8. What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant didn’t see the signs I
    submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of
    Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000,
    “Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver
    cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be
    too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of
    stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property”
    No authority to enforce charges

    9. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the
    authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and
    Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a
    right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a
    parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any
    event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences
    my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the
    Landowner.

    10. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186
    1. “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have
    the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not
    have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious
    flaw in this reasoning.
    2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to
    perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.
    If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock
    market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they
    do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the
    contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of
    sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to
    contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to
    perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and
    Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held
    to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would
    not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in
    precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the
    land.
    Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on
    the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to
    enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a
    contract with the motorist to permit parking”

    Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered
    11. The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy my Company’s
    legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was
    neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking
    operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of
    £100. My Company’s charges are within this level. The charge is not, therefore, excessive.

    12. The recent decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor
    do they have to be reflective of the parking operator’s loss. Furthermore, they are they are
    entitled to be at a level that provides a deterrent effect.

    The Current Debt
    13. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of
    the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to
    the parking charge incurred.

    14. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal
    representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my
    Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time
    could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company
    believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of
    the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage.
    The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses.
    Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
    Signed:
    Print: Georgina Philpot
    Dated: 11 January 2017
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 17, 12:12 AM
    • 47,000 Posts
    • 60,371 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good old Georgina Philpot and her statements of truth...make sure you are fully aware of all issues as explained by the Parking Prankster:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/gladstones-discontinue-heath-parade-case.html

    Was it Mrs Sunglasses who took the photos in this case too?

    I would take along to court a copy of PP's Blog even though it's not in your evidence list, just in case at the point that the discussion really focusses on the signs and the speed of the lurking attendant appearing from nowhere, the Judge might let you show the Blog all about this scam.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-01-2017 at 12:17 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 16th Jan 17, 8:35 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    Thank you for the help. I'm working my way through. ill put up what i think my counter arguments, any help would be appreciated.

    I'm pretty sure it was the same woman.
    • old dinosaur
    • By old dinosaur 18th Jan 17, 11:12 PM
    • 77 Posts
    • 58 Thanks
    old dinosaur
    Hi good luck am sure you ll win. Make sure you claim expenses not just postage but apparently £19/hr for work preparing defence as well as parking costs at the court. I ve just had my charge discontinued before witness statement had to be in, so cheated out of costs!
    Parking Prangsters words that the sign is a forbidding one as you can't pay to park and most landowner not ppc can do is bring case of trespass against you.
    Miss sunglasses frequents the place clicking away to trap motorists in fact I believe her car is deliberately parked in the layby, a case of entrapment.
    Wait to hear your win.
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 22nd Jan 17, 11:43 AM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    Hi people,

    i really need some help with countering the points above :

    point 4) I've basically written that they lied as they sent me an email saying it would cost too much
    point 5) the particulars of claim are insufficient and have no cause of action and is unclear. its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the particulars of claim
    point 7) ill talk about my own photos and highlight that the signs are unreadable

    need help with the other points. any and all help is really appreciated.

    thank you
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 22nd Jan 17, 11:46 AM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    Hi people,

    i really need some help with countering the points above :

    point 4) I've basically written that they lied as they sent me an email saying it would cost too much
    point 5) the particulars of claim are insufficient and have no cause of action and is unclear. its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the particulars of claim
    point 7) ill talk about my own photos and highlight that the signs are unreadable

    need help with the other points. any and all help is really appreciated.

    thank you
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 22nd Jan 17, 12:41 PM
    • 6,579 Posts
    • 5,523 Thanks
    The Deep
    court. I ve just had my charge discontinued before witness statement had to be in, so cheated out of costs!

    Not necessarily, it appears that they may have obtained your RK details without due cause, thus breaching your DPA rights, and their Kadoe contract, and could be fined £250 - £750.

    Read this

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html


    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/
    Last edited by The Deep; 22-01-2017 at 12:45 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jan 17, 5:40 PM
    • 47,000 Posts
    • 60,371 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi people,

    i really need some help with countering the points above :

    point 4) I've basically written that they lied as they sent me an email saying it would cost too much
    point 5) the particulars of claim are insufficient and have no cause of action and is unclear. its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the particulars of claim
    point 7) ill talk about my own photos and highlight that the signs are unreadable

    need help with the other points. any and all help is really appreciated.

    thank you
    Originally posted by spaceman8
    Sounds like you are on the right track, just answer each point from their WS, blow by blow, and add the Prankster's Blog and cases won at the same location, as part of your evidence.

    Show us the full draft of what you want to say, as that's easier for us to comment on.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 23rd Jan 17, 9:52 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    I, Georgina Philpot, OF The Courtyard, 1A Cranbourne Road, SL1 2XF WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:
    1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make
    this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own
    knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information
    supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from
    other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are following documents which my Company
    wishes to rely upon;
    i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as
    described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’)
    ii) The Sign (i.e. the Contract)
    iii) The Site Plan
    iv) Notices
    v) Photographs of the incident

    3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant
    Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the
    Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
    PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
    PM09407620
    17th January 2016
    Heath Parade - NW9
    Parked in restricted area

    Part 18 Request
    4. I have been advised that Gladstones Solicitors Ltd did receive a Part 18 Request from the
    Defendant on 16 September 2016, after the Claim had been issued and the Claim Form received
    by the Defendant. Paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 18 states that a “Request should be
    concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to
    enable the first party to prepare his own case or to understand the case he has to meet.” I
    respectfully submit the Defendant’s Part 18 Request was neither concise nor strictly confined
    and therefore the Claimant was not required to provide a response. The defendant would have
    been aware of the parking charge notice after receiving correspondence regarding it.

    The reasoning given for rejecting my part 18 request is an attempt to manipulate the facts as they were and is an attempt to mislead the courts. The reason given to myself via email on the 18/09/16:

    “Good Morning

    As a claim has been issued we suggest you make a formal application through the courts. We trust you agree that the costs that would be incurred in responding to your points at this stage would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim.
    
Regards

    Lorna
    Litigation Assistant”

    Sir/Madam citing “costs would be too much” to respond to a part 18 request is not an acceptable response. The matters requested in the part 18 should have been relatively simple and easy to comply with. Requesting more information should not cost anything, or be at all disproportionate. This was an attempt to deny information as hinder my ability to properly prepare a defense. I have attached a copy of the part 18 requests as so that it can be reviewed by yourself. Further more, I believe Gladstones don’t ever respond to pat 18 requests as I have found numerous posts online where they have responded in exactly the same manor, word for word.


    Particulars of Claim

    5. The Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically
    provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of
    the Claim. In any event, I can confirm that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient
    information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to; namely:-
    i) The date of the charge;
    ii) The vehicle registration number;
    iii) The Parking Charge Notice number;
    iv) The amount outstanding;
    v) That is relates to parking charges; and
    vi) That it is debt.

    6. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with
    the Act and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the charge
    which is/are the subject of this claim.

    The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged conduct in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no definite cause of action. The particulars of claim are insufficient and is unclear. Its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the inadequate particlars of claim.

    Did not see the signs/the terms are unfair

    7. The signs are independently audited by the IPC which is an accredited trade assocation within
    the parking sector. Therefore, my Company rejects any argument regarding the signs. My
    Company also rejects any argument that the Defendant did not see the sign. It is evident from
    the site plan that there are sufficient signs.

    8. What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant didn’t see the signs I
    submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of
    Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000,
    “Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver
    cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be
    too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of
    stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property”

    As highlighted in the witness statement, The laughably inadequate signs are in such a position that not legible from within the car. The sign is so small & unreadable that it requires the driver to exit the vehicle and stand directly below the sign. in the smallest of letters is written the £100 charge. The signage is in no way sufficient. Further more, it does not even comply with the IPC's code of conduct, the accredited trade association the claimant refers to!

    No authority to enforce charges

    9. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the
    authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and
    Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a
    right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a
    parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any
    event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences
    my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the
    Landowner.

    10. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186
    1. “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have
    the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not
    have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious
    flaw in this reasoning.
    2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to
    perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.
    If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock
    market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they
    do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the
    contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of
    sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to
    contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to
    perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and
    Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held
    to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would
    not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in
    precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the
    land.
    Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on
    the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to
    enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a
    contract with the motorist to permit parking”

    In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent, in this case Peel Land & Property Ltd. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.

    Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered
    11. The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy my Company’s
    legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was
    neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking
    operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of
    £100. My Company’s charges are within this level. The charge is not, therefore, excessive.

    The Claimant has ignored the Government’s official position on parking charges as expressed clearly in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking Charges:
    “Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.”

    The amount demanded cannot possibly be a genuine pre-estimate of the Claimant’s loss. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor’s cost to prepare the claim.
    The Defendant refers the court to the incompetent Particulars of Claim that disclose neither the basis for the claim nor a definite cause of action.
    The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the named solicitor did not prepare the claim and did not therefore charge the stated amount.

    Further more, in the case Parkingeye vs Beavis, the £85 charge was a charge for contravening the terms of contract. The terms were clear. As per entering and parkling at the sight for 2 hours, exceeding this would result incur a £85 charge. The consideration flows both ways as both parties gain something for parking. Thus the contract was formed. In the case before you today, PCM issued the fine for simply stopping in the loading bay. The sign is absolutely forbidding. That stopping in the loading bay, even for a second, automatically incurs a charge before the client has even had a chance to become aware of any terms of the site. It would be absurd that such a situation would count as a valid contract. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance.


    12. The recent decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor
    do they have to be reflective of the parking operator’s loss. Furthermore, they are they are
    entitled to be at a level that provides a deterrent effect.

    If the charges are high as meant to be a deterrent effect then how can a fine be issued in a manner that does not allow the driver to be deterred. A true deterent would be allowing the driver the time to read the terms at site, see the high costs demanded for stopping and move the vehicle. Thus the charge acting as a deterrent. However the operator is practicing in a predatory manor. My brother can attest to this. This was also found in the paking prankster case. If this was nothing more than entrapment, the operator would act in a manor that would allow drivers the grace period to consider the terms and would make genuine attemts to mitigate any loss.

    The Current Debt
    13. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of
    the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to
    the parking charge incurred.

    14. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal
    representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my
    Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time
    could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company
    believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of
    the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage.
    The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses.
    Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

    In addition to the £100 ‘parking charge’, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
    Signed:
    Print: Georgina Philpot
    Dated: 11 January 2017
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 23rd Jan 17, 9:55 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    this is the evidence they've put up as permission to do as they want:

    http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg577/smilezilla/permission%20to%20enforce_zpss9v9u0vv.jpg
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 23rd Jan 17, 10:00 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    how does this work on the day. do they read out their witness statement and then i read out mine. or do i counter each point as they say it? and likewise they counter each point as i say it?

    when i win (hopefully!!) how do i ask for my costs incurred. old dinosaur said i could claim hours spent. how do i bring that up?

    thanks everyone
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Jan 17, 1:00 AM
    • 47,000 Posts
    • 60,371 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The Claimant has ignored the Government’s official position on parking charges as expressed clearly in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking Charges:
    “Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.”

    The amount demanded cannot possibly be a genuine pre-estimate of the Claimant’s loss.
    Remove the above from your notes, never get into a GPEOL argument because they will smash it with the Beavis case and the Judge will support them! Don't even go there with those words, the info is out of date (pre-Beavis case).


    This (below) is more important to rebut:

    3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
    PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
    PM09407620
    17th January 2016
    Heath Parade - NW9
    Parked in restricted area

    how does this work on the day. do they read out their witness statement and then i read out mine. or do i counter each point as they say it? and likewise they counter each point as i say it?
    Be ready in case the Judge wants an 'overview' of your points of defence as the first thing. Some do, and Defendants have been caught on the hop, ready to argue their case in depth on any point but not armed with a basic summary of the main issues.

    Read people's summaries of their court cases, e.g. AB Express and Lamilad both reported about how it went in their threads here. And the Parking Prankster reports cases and how they went, here is a guest blog where the Defendant describes what happened and they regretted not taking a copy of Schedule 4 with them (it has been said that the only law in the small claim courtroom is that which you take in with you, so no assumption that the Judge will know what you are on about):

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/ukpc-v-mccarthy-score-draw-no-penalties.html


    when i win (hopefully!!) how do i ask for my costs incurred. old dinosaur said i could claim hours spent. how do i bring that up?
    Hours spent might not be allowed but you can try, a few hours at £19 per hour. More likely to be granted would be your loss of salary or loss of leave, plus your travel, parking etc. You CAN claim loss of leave but some Judges do not even know this, so have this up your sleeve in your notes in your 'costs schedule':

    ''27.14.2(e) a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27 for any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing''
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 24th Jan 17, 10:08 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    I, Georgina Philpot, OF The Courtyard, 1A Cranbourne Road, SL1 2XF WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:
    1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make
    this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own
    knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information
    supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from
    other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are following documents which my Company
    wishes to rely upon;
    i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as
    described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’)
    ii) The Sign (i.e. the Contract)
    iii) The Site Plan
    iv) Notices
    v) Photographs of the incident

    3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant
    Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the
    Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
    PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
    PM09407620
    17th January 2016
    Heath Parade - NW9
    Parked in restricted area

    As per schedule 4- Protection of freedoms act (2012)- Paragraph 2 (2)- “ the reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to the drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land)”

    As per the recent case (#7 exhibit) Jopson vs Homeguard. It was made abundantly clear the distinction of stopping and parking:


    (19) “The purported prohibition was upon “parking”, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time.”

    (21) “Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellants car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her hesk, it was not “parked”.Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.”

    This was a finding fact by the judge Harris QC. This above all else means that the charge notice issued to myself was not in accordance to Legislation as set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).

    Further more, as set by the same Legislation. It defines the term “adequate notice” In paragraph 2 (3)(b)(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”

    As per my evidence pack and the evidence so helpfully provided by the claimant. It shows the notices (signs) are not sufficiently adequate as the “£100 charge” is unreadable from the vehicle.



    Part 18 Request
    4. I have been advised that Gladstones Solicitors Ltd did receive a Part 18 Request from the
    Defendant on 16 September 2016, after the Claim had been issued and the Claim Form received
    by the Defendant. Paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 18 states that a “Request should be
    concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to
    enable the first party to prepare his own case or to understand the case he has to meet.” I
    respectfully submit the Defendant’s Part 18 Request was neither concise nor strictly confined
    and therefore the Claimant was not required to provide a response. The defendant would have
    been aware of the parking charge notice after receiving correspondence regarding it.
    Particulars of Claim

    The reasoning given for rejecting my part 18 request is an attempt to manipulate the facts as they were and is an attempt to mislead the courts. The reason given to myself via email on the 18/09/16:

    “Good Morning

    As a claim has been issued we suggest you make a formal application through the courts. We trust you agree that the costs that would be incurred in responding to your points at this stage would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim.
    
Regards

    Lorna
    Litigation Assistant”

    Sir/Madam citing “costs would be too much” to respond to a part 18 request is not an acceptable response. The matters requested in the part 18 should have been relatively simple and easy to comply with. Requesting more information should not cost anything, or be at all disproportionate. This was an attempt to deny information as hinder my ability to properly prepare a defense. I have attached a copy of the part 18 requests as so that it can be reviewed by yourself. Further more, I believe Gladstones don’t ever respond to pat 18 requests as I have found numerous posts online where they have responded in exactly the same manor, word for word.


    5. The Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically
    provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of
    the Claim. In any event, I can confirm that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient
    information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to; namely:-
    i) The date of the charge;
    ii) The vehicle registration number;
    iii) The Parking Charge Notice number;
    iv) The amount outstanding;
    v) That is relates to parking charges; and
    vi) That it is debt.

    6. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with
    the Act and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the charge
    which is/are the subject of this claim.

    The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged conduct in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no definite cause of action. The particulars of claim are insufficient and is unclear. Its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the inadequate particlars of claim.

    Did not see the signs/the terms are unfair

    7. The signs are independently audited by the IPC which is an accredited trade assocation within
    the parking sector. Therefore, my Company rejects any argument regarding the signs. My
    Company also rejects any argument that the Defendant did not see the sign. It is evident from
    the site plan that there are sufficient signs.

    8. What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant didn’t see the signs I
    submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of
    Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000,
    “Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver
    cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be
    too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of
    stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property”
    No authority to enforce charges

    As evidenced and highlighted in the witness statement, The laughably inadequate signs are in such a position that not legible from within the car. The sign is so small & unreadable that it requires the driver to exit the vehicle and stand directly below the sign. in the smallest of letters is written the £100 charge. The signage is in no way sufficient. Further more, it does not even comply with the IPC's code of conduct, the accredited trade association the claimant refers to!

    My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors, the individuals in question being John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.


    9. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the
    authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and
    Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a
    right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a
    parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any
    event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences
    my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the
    Landowner.

    10. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186
    1. “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have
    the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not
    have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious
    flaw in this reasoning.
    2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to
    perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.
    If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock
    market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they
    do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the
    contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of
    sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to
    contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to
    perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and
    Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held
    to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would
    not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in
    precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the
    land.
    Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on
    the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to
    enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a
    contract with the motorist to permit parking”

    In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent, in this case Peel Land & Property Ltd. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.

    Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered
    11. The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy my Company’s
    legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was
    neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking
    operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of
    £100. My Company’s charges are within this level. The charge is not, therefore, excessive.

    The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor’s cost to prepare the claim.
    The Defendant refers the court to the incompetent Particulars of Claim that disclose neither the basis for the claim nor a definite cause of action.
    The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the named solicitor did not prepare the claim and did not therefore charge the stated amount.

    Further more, in the case Parkingeye vs Beavis, the £85 charge was a charge for contravening the terms of contract. The terms were clear. As per entering and parkling at the sight for 2 hours, exceeding this would result incur a £85 charge. The consideration flows both ways as both parties gain something for parking. Thus the contract was formed. In the case before you today, PCM issued the fine for simply stopping in the loading bay. The sign is absolutely forbidding. That stopping in the loading bay, even for a second, automatically incurs a charge before the client has even had a chance to become aware of any terms of the site. It would be absurd that such a situation would count as a valid contract. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance.


    12. The recent decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor
    do they have to be reflective of the parking operator’s loss. Furthermore, they are they are
    entitled to be at a level that provides a deterrent effect.

    If the charges are high as meant to be a deterrent effect then how can a fine be issued in a manner that does not allow the driver to be deterred. A true deterent would be allowing the driver the time to read the terms at site, see the high costs demanded for stopping and move the vehicle. Thus the charge acting as a deterrent. However the operator is practicing in a predatory manor. My brother can attest to this. This was also found in the paking prankster case. If this was nothing more than entrapment, the operator would act in a manor that would allow drivers the grace period to consider the terms and would make genuine attemts to mitigate any loss.

    The Current Debt
    13. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of
    the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to
    the parking charge incurred.

    14. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal
    representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my
    Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time
    could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company
    believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of
    the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage.
    The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses.
    Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

    In the Protection of Freedom Act (2012) – Paragraph 4(5)- “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”

    The £100 ‘parking charge’, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. This is explicitly written in the next point in the Protection of Freedom Act. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
    Signed:
    Print: Georgina Philpot
    Dated: 11 January 2017
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 24th Jan 17, 10:15 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    I, Georgina Philpot, OF The Courtyard, 1A Cranbourne Road, SL1 2XF WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

    1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make
    this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own
    knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information
    supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from
    other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are following documents which my Company
    wishes to rely upon;
    i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as
    described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’)
    ii) The Sign (i.e. the Contract)
    iii) The Site Plan
    iv) Notices
    v) Photographs of the incident

    3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant
    Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the
    Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
    PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
    PM09407620
    17th January 2016
    Heath Parade - NW9
    Parked in restricted area

    As per schedule 4- Protection of freedoms act (2012)- Paragraph 2 (2)- “ the reference in the definition of “parking charge” to a sum in the nature of damages is to a sum of which adequate notice was given to the drivers of vehicles (when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land)”

    As per the recent case (#7 exhibit) Jopson vs Homeguard. It was made abundantly clear the distinction of stopping and parking:


    (19) “The purported prohibition was upon “parking”, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time.”

    (21) “Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellants car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her hesk, it was not “parked”.Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.”

    This was a finding fact by the judge Harris QC. This above all else means that the charge notice issued to myself was not in accordance to Legislation as set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012).


    Further more, as set by the same Legislation. It defines the term “adequate notice” In paragraph 2 (3)(b)(ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land”

    As per my evidence pack and the evidence so helpfully provided by the claimant. It shows the notices (signs) are not sufficiently adequate as the “£100 charge” is unreadable from the vehicle.


    Part 18 Request
    4. I have been advised that Gladstones Solicitors Ltd did receive a Part 18 Request from the
    Defendant on 16 September 2016, after the Claim had been issued and the Claim Form received
    by the Defendant. Paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 18 states that a “Request should be
    concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to
    enable the first party to prepare his own case or to understand the case he has to meet.” I
    respectfully submit the Defendant’s Part 18 Request was neither concise nor strictly confined
    and therefore the Claimant was not required to provide a response. The defendant would have
    been aware of the parking charge notice after receiving correspondence regarding it.

    The reasoning given for rejecting my part 18 request is an attempt to manipulate the facts as they were and is an attempt to mislead the courts. The reason given to myself via email on the 18/09/16:

    “Good Morning

    As a claim has been issued we suggest you make a formal application through the courts. We trust you agree that the costs that would be incurred in responding to your points at this stage would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim.
    
Regards

    Lorna
    Litigation Assistant”

    Sir/Madam citing “costs would be too much” to respond to a part 18 request is not an acceptable response. The matters requested in the part 18 should have been relatively simple and easy to comply with. Requesting more information should not cost anything, or be at all disproportionate. This was an attempt to deny information as hinder my ability to properly prepare a defense. I have attached a copy of the part 18 requests as so that it can be reviewed by yourself. Further more, I believe Gladstones don’t ever respond to pat 18 requests as I have found numerous posts online where they have responded in exactly the same manor, word for word.


    Particulars of Claim

    5. The Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically
    provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of
    the Claim. In any event, I can confirm that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient
    information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to; namely:-
    i) The date of the charge;
    ii) The vehicle registration number;
    iii) The Parking Charge Notice number;
    iv) The amount outstanding;
    v) That is relates to parking charges; and
    vi) That it is debt.

    6. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with
    the Act and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the charge
    which is/are the subject of this claim.

    The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged conduct in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no definite cause of action. The particulars of claim are insufficient and is unclear. Its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the inadequate particlars of claim.

    Did not see the signs/the terms are unfair

    7. The signs are independently audited by the IPC which is an accredited trade association within the parking sector. Therefore, my Company rejects any argument regarding the signs. My
    Company also rejects any argument that the Defendant did not see the sign. It is evident from the site plan that there are sufficient signs.

    8. What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant didn’t see the signs I
    submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of
    Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000,
    “Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver
    cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be
    too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of
    stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property”
    No authority to enforce charges

    As evidenced and highlighted in the witness statement, The laughably inadequate signs are in such a position that not legible from within the car. The sign is so small & unreadable that it requires the driver to exit the vehicle and stand directly below the sign. in the smallest of letters is written the £100 charge. The signage is in no way sufficient. Further more, it does not even comply with the IPC's code of conduct, the accredited trade association the claimant refers to!

    My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors, the individuals in question being John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.



    9. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the
    authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and
    Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a
    right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a
    parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any
    event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences
    my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the
    Landowner.

    10. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186
    1. “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have
    the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not
    have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious
    flaw in this reasoning.
    2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to
    perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.
    If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock
    market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they
    do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the
    contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of
    sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to
    contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to
    perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and
    Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held
    to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would
    not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in
    precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the
    land.
    Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on
    the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to
    enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a
    contract with the motorist to permit parking”

    In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent, in this case Peel Land & Property Ltd. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.

    Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered
    11. The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy my Company’s
    legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was
    neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking
    operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of
    £100. My Company’s charges are within this level. The charge is not, therefore, excessive.

    The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor’s cost to prepare the claim.
    The Defendant refers the court to the incompetent Particulars of Claim that disclose neither the basis for the claim nor a definite cause of action.
    The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the named solicitor did not prepare the claim and did not therefore charge the stated amount.

    Further more, in the case Parkingeye vs Beavis, the £85 charge was a charge for contravening the terms of contract. The terms were clear. As per entering and parkling at the sight for 2 hours, exceeding this would result incur a £85 charge. The consideration flows both ways as both parties gain something for parking. Thus the contract was formed. In the case before you today, PCM issued the fine for simply stopping in the loading bay. The sign is absolutely forbidding. That stopping in the loading bay, even for a second, automatically incurs a charge before the client has even had a chance to become aware of any terms of the site. It would be absurd that such a situation would count as a valid contract. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance.



    12. The recent decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor
    do they have to be reflective of the parking operator’s loss. Furthermore, they are they are
    entitled to be at a level that provides a deterrent effect.

    If the charges are high as meant to be a deterrent effect then how can a fine be issued in a manner that does not allow the driver to be deterred. A true deterent would be allowing the driver the time to read the terms at site, see the high costs demanded for stopping and move the vehicle. Thus the charge acting as a deterrent. However the operator is practicing in a predatory manor. My brother can attest to this. This was also found in the paking prankster case. If this was nothing more than entrapment, the operator would act in a manor that would allow drivers the grace period to consider the terms and would make genuine attemts to mitigate any loss.

    The Current Debt
    13. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of
    the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to
    the parking charge incurred.

    As no contract was formed there can be no breach of contract. I did not agree to pay a £100 charge.

    14. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal
    representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my
    Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time
    could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company
    believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of
    the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage.
    The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses.
    Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

    In the Protection of Freedom Act (2012) – Paragraph 4(5)- “the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”

    The £100 ‘parking charge’, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. This is explicitly written in the next point in the Protection of Freedom Act. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.


    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
    Signed:
    Print: Georgina Philpot
    Dated: 11 January 2017
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 24th Jan 17, 10:21 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    Thank you coupon-mad for your continued help!

    with regards to 9 and 10. I'm struggling as to how to refute this. please help.

    also i have 3 different names in play with regards to this and i don't know what to do. i have:

    Peel Land & property Limited - cited by Parking prankster as the Landowner
    Grahame Park Limited as the Landlord- cited from my brothers lease
    Genesis Housing association- cited by Gladstones in their evidence pack as the Freeholder.

    is there anything here that i could write?

    thank you
    • spaceman8
    • By spaceman8 28th Jan 17, 6:11 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    spaceman8
    i won!!

    it was over and done with in about 10mins. the judge tore into the solicitor (This was a local solicitor that Gladstones had hired) The Judge had already reviewed everything we had submitted.

    The Judge started with asking them where the facts of case are as nowhere in the case pack they had submitted and actually explained properly what happened. He then said that all the facts had been provided by myself.

    then he went on to grill them about why i had been fined when i was unloading in a loading bay

    He grilled them on the fact that the signs are inadequate and unreadable from the car. the sign is too far up on a wall and not legible. how can you fine someone who can't read the sign and know the terms on the site.

    He said that the evidence they had provided showed nothing. just my car with myself in it for 2mins and 14 sec. no time as to when i came into the bay and no time when i left and that 2 mins 14 sec was not enough time, the driver is still in the car. Plus the fact that i hadn't been given the opportunity to read the terms at the site.

    he said, there is no claim here and dismissed the case. unfortunately he didn't allow me to claim earnings lost. but still a win!!

    thank you everyone for your help throughout this whole process.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 28th Jan 17, 6:20 PM
    • 13,200 Posts
    • 20,629 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Great result. Does the Prankster know about your win? Email him if not.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 28th Jan 17, 6:51 PM
    • 5,313 Posts
    • 6,759 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Well done spaceman8

    It seems Gladstones cases are getting shorter and shorter in court nowadays.

    I think the legal profession like judges are getting very concerned that Gladstones are quickly bringing them in disrepute.

    As Umkomaas says, tell the Parking Prankster, it's now

    PCM YOU HAVE BEEN GLADSTONED


    Gladstones have been promoted from being incompetent to being ..
    COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT

    A lesson to PCM about their own incompetence and the incompetence of Gladstones

    PCM .... "A FOOL AND HIS MONEY IS EASILY PARTED"

    The sad thing is ... the SRA know all about Gladstones with many complaints, guess they prefer to be tarred with the same brush
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 28th Jan 17, 6:53 PM
    • 407 Posts
    • 770 Thanks
    safarmuk
    Well done, great result. Bet it felt good eh?
    Definitely let the Parking Prankster know, he has blogged about Ms Philpots "evidence" packs before.

    Is there a case for a DPA claim here? The fact the Judge smashed it out of the park in 10 minutes would imply that the PPC should never have even tried this and certainly not taken it this far.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

618Posts Today

5,455Users online

Martin's Twitter