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
    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 29th Sep 16, 10:52 AM
    • 29Posts
    • 6Thanks
    hopsfield
    Do I have a case or shall I just pay it? Galdstone letter
    • #1
    • 29th Sep 16, 10:52 AM
    Do I have a case or shall I just pay it? Galdstone letter 29th Sep 16 at 10:52 AM
    Hi,

    This is my second post. 3 months after sending my initial letter to SiP I have received a letter from Sip informing me that my appeal is not with in the time frame of PCN and they don't accept my appeal.
    I have now received a LBC from Gladstenos (misspelled on purpose). I been trying to read all the information on this forum but there is so much stuff and its all very confusing and hard to understand.
    Part of me thinks I should just give in and pay. But even their payment method (by phone only) scares me as I don't want to give my bank details to some random company.
    Please help - I really don't know what to do. I'm now scared this will affect my credit score as well.
Page 2
    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 29th Sep 16, 4:55 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    hopsfield
    You are right just checked the photo of the sign at the car park and it says £100...
    http://imgur.com/a/iYEwY
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 16, 4:59 PM
    • 40,408 Posts
    • 52,295 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Great! as expected:

    - the £100 is in smaller font than the most prominent words

    - the sign is high up on a wall (less likely to be noticed)

    - the sign says nothing about adding £50, or anything at all (in fact it mentions 'further reductions' like some sort of clothing sale!). Hilarious!

    - the sign is prohibitive, makes NO OFFER (therefore creates no contract because they have provided no 'consideration') see here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71368424#post71368424

    Nice evidence.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 29th Sep 16, 5:23 PM
    • 2,942 Posts
    • 3,934 Thanks
    Half_way
    imgur. com/a/4K8eq - this is my LBC letter (remove the space before "com"

    I did sent a letter to car park owner (not landlord - not sure who that is) - but I received a letter back saying its too late to appeal.

    Its SiP
    Originally posted by hopsfield
    You are not appealing to the land owner/car park owner, you are telling them to instruct their agents, SIP parking to cancel the charge.
    The car park owner in most cases will not be the parking company- the PPC is almost always nothing but a parasite infesting a car park.

    In order to get help you need to supply a little more information ( just enough but not too much)

    Type of car park? residential, yours? your space? retail outlet? restaurant? pub? shopping centre? other?

    Location of car park - as long as you do not divulge any personal or other identifying information there no problem with this, something like Goods yard retail park, Station road, somwheretown, anywhereshire.
    Although N.Martin doesn't post on here, there maybe someone else who is familiar with that car park/site and could help.
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 29th Sep 16, 8:03 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    hopsfield
    Its a public car park, In Manchester - Great Jackson street. People use it while working in the offices near by. Does this help?
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 29th Sep 16, 8:18 PM
    • 14,806 Posts
    • 13,448 Thanks
    bod1467
    Although N.Martin doesn't post on here, there maybe someone else who is familiar with that car park/site and could help.
    Originally posted by Half_way
    People who've joined this forum in the last couple of years may not understand that reference.
    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 29th Sep 16, 8:32 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    hopsfield
    I don't get it share ...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 16, 9:50 PM
    • 40,408 Posts
    • 52,295 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    The hilarious template letter from an imaginary 'N Martin' at ANPR Ltd* always said he or she was 'familiar' with every site/any ticket!

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5144751

    ''...and taking into consideration I personally know the site...''





    *now no longer allowed to get DVLA data...ex-clamper Trev Whitehouse was consigned to the norty step and I understand he may have retired/may be living abroad more, in the property he bought with the proceeds of his clamping/ticketing racket.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 29th Sep 16, 11:47 PM
    • 2,942 Posts
    • 3,934 Thanks
    Half_way
    If you want to see just what you are dealing with, with regards to PPCs try googling: Ibotson VCS toothbrush
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 30th Sep 16, 6:39 AM
    • 5,561 Posts
    • 4,270 Thanks
    The Deep
    Here he is

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/trevor-whitehouse-9457815?authType=name&authToken=qTAV
    Last edited by The Deep; 30-09-2016 at 8:24 AM.
    • bod1467
    • By bod1467 30th Sep 16, 9:19 AM
    • 14,806 Posts
    • 13,448 Thanks
    bod1467
    We write and create the mathematical algorithms that are use in number plate detection
    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 14th Oct 16, 4:02 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    hopsfield
    Hey guys just a quick update -
    I have now received a court letter (no reply from Gladsotnes...)
    Help (
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Oct 16, 5:16 PM
    • 40,408 Posts
    • 52,295 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Show us your defence draft then, created from all the zillions of others here. Search 'Gladstones defence'.

    You also need to read 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES thread and the second link under that heading which is bargepole's explanation of what happens when and how to acknowledge the service of the claim and buy yourself more time. That is your first task.

    It will encourage you to know that we've helped with lots of Gladstones claims so far this year, helped with people's draft defences and I cannot recall a single Gladstone claim on this forum that has gone further; none went to a hearing that I can recall, not a single one. Gladstones appear to have crawled back under their stone in lots of cases here so we must be doing something right.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 18th Oct 16, 1:26 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    hopsfield
    Right here it is.... Please comment/advise

    Claim Number : *******

    Statement of Defence

    1. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:
    I. The Claimant has not identified the driver
    II. The Claimant had no capacity to form a contract with the motorist
    III. The Claimant did not offer a genuine contract and the amount claimed was intended as a penalty.
    V. Even if a debt had existed, it would be due to the landowner, not the Claimant
    VI. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action
    2. The Defendant neither admits nor denies that he was driver.
    3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.
    ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name. ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive.
    The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is owed to the landowner, not the Claimant.
    4. The Defendant denies that signs were clear and visible. The Defendant was unaware of any signs until alerted to them by the Claimant’s Parking Enforcement Notice. A clear sign stating the terms and conditions at the entrance to the car park is a specific requirement that the Claimant is required to follow. This was absent. The Defendant refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by the Claimant could not be read by a driver entering the car park.
    5. The Claimant has only stated that, as a result of the Defendant’s conduct, a charge was incurred. 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.

    6. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant’s intention was not to offer a genuine contract to park and that the main purpose was to deter the undisclosed conduct by attempting to enforce a penalty. The Defendant refers the court to 3YK50188 : Civil Enforcement Ltd v McCafferty (Luton County Court appeal) that was decided by Mr. Recorder Gibson QC in almost identical words (21 February 2014).

    7. The Defendant refers the court to the tests suggested by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd (1915) and Lordsvale Finance plc v Bank of Zambia to determine if the sum is a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of damages. The Defendant also refers the court to O.B. Services v Thurlow (Worcester County Court 2011) and Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) that involved similar facts to the present case.
    The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has also 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 Defendant submits that 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 submits a prof of VAT receipt for the vehicle - License No XXXXXX showing that a payment for the period of 10hrs parking -dated xxxxxx has been made via PayByPhone App. Therefore The Claimant cannot have a genuine loss in revenue.
    8. 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.
    On 8th June 2016 the defendant wrote to the Claimant requesting details of the Particulars of Claim in order that a defence might be prepared. The Claimant has replied that the Defendant should proceed directly to the submission of a defence without seeing detailed Particulars of Claim (I have acturally lost that letter – so should I remove this line?)
    The Defendant would like to make it clear that he does not agree that provision of details of the Claim is something that should incur any costs to anyone, nor would it be disproportionate or unreasonable to provide them in pursuit of a Claim.
    This response is submitted as evidence of unreasonable behavior by the Claimant.

    9. The Claimant has brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant is abusing the court process by using the threat of action to alarm the Defendant into making a payment that is not owed.
    The Defendant is aware that the Claimant has a well-documented history of issuing large numbers of court claims that are discontinued at very short notice before a scheduled hearing.
    The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    Last edited by hopsfield; 19-10-2016 at 8:53 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Oct 16, 12:57 AM
    • 40,408 Posts
    • 52,295 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bumping this thread so it gets some views tomorrow.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 19th Oct 16, 1:22 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    hopsfield
    yes please, can anyone help
    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 22nd Oct 16, 9:38 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    hopsfield
    Right I have now updated my Defence under new thread - gave it a new title in hope it gets more attention. Thanks
    Its here
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5544354
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Oct 16, 1:44 PM
    • 40,408 Posts
    • 52,295 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hopsfield please show it here, ask the questions here and forget the second thread!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 22nd Oct 16, 2:08 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    hopsfield
    Sure, here it is:
    Summary

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:

    i. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    ii. The Claimant did not identify the driver
    iii. The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    iv. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
    v. The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable

    The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. As the claimant has not provided this information, signage details have been inferred from stock photographs and the details may not be correct. Minor variants in text may occur. All references to signage therefore, are subject to change once the full particulars of claim have been provided.



    i. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    1. The Claimant has stated that, as a result of the Defendant’s conduct, a charge was incurred. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged conduct in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action. As the Defendant has never received any other information from the Operator, he has no idea what conduct he is defending and is unable to assist the court to understand the claim.
    The Defendant asks the Court that they Strike out the claim entirely as there has been no Cause of Action disclosed. Alternatively the Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.
    ii. The Claimant The Claimant did not identify the driver
    2. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
    In particular, the notice to keeper must, according to Schedule 4, para 9, 2(b) inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full. As The Notice to Keeper does not meet the strict conditions of POFA2012, the defendant can have no liability.
    The claimant also failed to state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

    iii. The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
    4. ParkingEye v Sharma (3QT62646 Brentford County Court) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the Claimant had no ownership of, or proprietary interest in, the land; it followed that the Claimant, acting as an agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name.
    5. ParkingEye v Gardam (3QT60598) similarly examined the contract and found the Sharma judgment persuasive.
    6. The Defendant also refers the court to ParkingEye v Somerfield (2012) (EWCA Civ 1338 case A3/2011/0909) that examined ParkingEye contracts. This stated that any debt was due to Somerfield and that ParkingEye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows therefore that if a debt exists, it is owed to the landowner, not the Claimant.

    iv. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
    7. The Defendant denies that he would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read and understand. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee (of which VCS is a member), clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.” As can be seen from the attached photographic evidence this is not the case.

    v. The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable
    8. The Defendant refers the court to the tests suggested by the House of Lords in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd (1915) and Lordsvale Finance plc v Bank of Zambia to determine if the sum is a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of damages. The Defendant also refers the court to O.B. Services v Thurlow (Worcester County Court 2011) and Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) that involved similar facts to the present case.
    9. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has also 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.”
    10. The Defendant submits that 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 submits a prof of VAT receipt for the vehicle - License No XXXXXX showing that a payment for the period of 10hrs parking -dated xxxxxx has been made via PayByPhone App. Therefore The Claimant cannot have a genuine loss in revenue.
    11. The Defendant would like to point out that as this car park does not offer a free parking period the ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley case does not apply (ParkingEye v Cargius case)
    12. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £54 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable. The Claimant described the charge of £54.00 in a previous letter as "legal fees" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
    Save as expressly admitted, the Claimant's particulars of claim are denied.

    The court is invited to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.


    (Name) (Signature) (Date)
    • hopsfield
    • By hopsfield 24th Oct 16, 10:06 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    hopsfield
    Just tried to upload my defence via Money Claim online but got some sort of error
    We are sorry, but your request has been rejected owing to one or more technical reasons.
    Any idea what else can I do? also where and when do I upload my evidence (photos etc) thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Oct 16, 10:07 PM
    • 40,408 Posts
    • 52,295 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ring the helpline tomorrow, shown on the MCOL/Gateway info.

    Ask for an email address but we have it here somewhere anyway.

    If this is first defence stage then you DO NOT supply your exhibits yet.

    Some of that defence looks like it's based on an OLD one? 'NO LOSS' should not feature and old cases like PE v Gardam make no sense to me in 2016. Have you not read a few from this month? On here or on pepipoo? They don't read like that.

    None of this is relevant, where ARE people getting this old stuff from?:
    9. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has also 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.”
    10. The Defendant submits that 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.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 24-10-2016 at 10:12 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the breadcrumb trail, top of page: Household & Travel > Motoring > Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking & READ THE 'NEWBIES' FAQS THREAD.
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

1,352Posts Today

6,710Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @speirin: @MartinSLewis now thats a blast from the past ???? https://t.co/5cSz1aNWFz

  • Have you set the Betamax? Tonight 8pm ITV The Martin Lewis Money Show - if ur married, and/or got kids and/or get tax credits - a must watch

  • On my way to @thismorning today "Is a shop telling you porkies" - how to tell your consumer rights from consumer wrongs...

  • Follow Martin