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
    • airman1232
    • By airman1232 23rd Jan 17, 7:09 PM
    • 45Posts
    • 14Thanks
    airman1232
    Gladstones Court Papers
    • #1
    • 23rd Jan 17, 7:09 PM
    Gladstones Court Papers 23rd Jan 17 at 7:09 PM
    Hi All,

    I have recieved court papers and have acknowledged and stated I will defend.

    This was a PCN from AM Parking, back in 08/2014, I recieved the NTK (Notice to Owner - https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203572962-AM-Parking-Services-Ltd) was recieved on 01/15 - Over 59 days. Info was requested from DVLA on 12/2014.

    This is the location discussed here before:
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5515243

    Below is my defence, I am looking for improvements and feedback.

    h says

    1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimant are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

    Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:

    1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    (1) those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’,
    (2) those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    (3) those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant
    3. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
    (1) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
    (2) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
    reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
    bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
    issuing proceedings.

    On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action.





    Statement Of Defence
    Claim xxxxxx

    [NAME]
    V
    Parking Company – GLAD. SOLIC.
    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

    1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, no. [INSERT]. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at [LOCATION] on [DATE]

    2. The Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC.
    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 are 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.

    3. 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. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, 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.

    4. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the
    parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover
    additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred
    the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if
    they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be
    recovered in the Small Claims Court

    5. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £70, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding various ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of £50.00 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 Glastones to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.

    6. No Notice to Keeper was issued therefore non compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability. The keeper liability requirements of POFA 2012 must be strictly complied with where the appellant is the Keeper, as in this case.

    As a Notice to Driver was provided on the vehicle, an NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in POFA 2012. The alleged infringement occurred on 1/07/2016 and it is understood that the NTK was required to reach the registered keeper no earlier than 28/7/2016 and no later than 26/08/2016, this date has passed & the operator has failed to serve a ‘notice to keeper’ in any form whatsoever. Therefore as the conditions set out by paragraph 6 have not been complied with, there can be no keeper liability. It follows that POPLA will not be able to find that the charge notice is enforceable against the keeper.

    7. 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 not been provided.
    a) The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    b) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    c) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim.
    The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    d) The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable
    the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
    It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged
    contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    e) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim by
    Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing
    due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and
    ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law’
    f) On the 19th Audust 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
    parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
    paragraphs 7.3 - 7.5. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed
    to do, and the court confirmed the claim will now be struck out.

    8. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
    a) No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to the Defendant.
    b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no
    reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially
    bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before
    issuing proceedings.

    9. The signage on site is inadequate or inappropriate and can have made no contract with the driver.
    In accordance with the BPA code of practice, the entrance sign must be “readable by drivers without having to look away from the road”. The entrance sign at Sandalwood is on the right side of the road in front of a car park area (Photo1), not on the driver’s side of the road. It is not positioned at the correct angle for a driver entering the parking area to read whilst driving a vehicle. It is also stuck on top of another sign owned by Oakwood Parking centre obstructing the rules of the car park (Photo 2). The ‘Free Parking’ text does not state who the free parking applies to.
    This car park appears to be managed by three operators and AM Parking Ltd has placed their sign on top of another operators. Tesco also manage the parking area which is why the driver entered this car park. Their parking offers 20 minutes free parking. These signs are easily visible (Photo 3).
    I require AM Parking Ltd to prove beyond any doubt that the sign, meeting the requirements of the law, was visible to the driver upon entering the car park.
    A notice is not imported into the contract unless brought home so prominently that the party 'must' have known of it and agreed terms. The driver of this vehicle cannot have seen an obstructed sign; there was no consideration / acceptance and no contract agreed between the parties. The onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently visible.
    With regards to the actual sign, it is not BPA compliant. The font specifying the sum payable for unauthorised parking is too small and not readable by a driver from their car (Photo 8). The sign contains a vast amount of text and as a result, the font is too small and is not readable by an approaching driver (Photo 9). The sign states that ‘line markings in white are for valid permit holders only’. There are no white line markings at this car park.? This sign therefore contains false information.

    10. Failure of AM Parking Ltd to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice Grace Period
    In accordance with the BPA Code of Practice grace period, AM Parking Ltd “should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action. You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”. The driver entered the car park and exited at within 10 minutes. The car there for a mere 5 minutes which was not sufficient time under the BPA Grace periods, to have read any signs and decided whether to accept the terms and stay in the car park, or to fetch a permit if the driver had access to one in adjacent premises, or indeed to return to the car (having read the terms) and leave. AM Parking Ltd have failed to adhere to the BPA grace period rules. I require AM Parking Ltd to prove beyond any doubt that the car was parked for more than 5 minutes and therefore, not within the grace period allowed. AM Parking Ltd need to confirm their specific grace period for the site.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Feb 17, 11:24 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's a very good Gladstones defence. Nicely done, repetition weeded out and it flows well.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • airman1232
    • By airman1232 18th May 17, 8:05 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    airman1232
    Thanks all for our great help on this so far. I now have a date, altogh it appears that that Gladstone's did not submit some of their papers correctly, so they have to resubmit, im sure they will none the less.

    Now, what is a witness statement? and apparently I need to provide any evidance I wish to use, 14 days before the hearing?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th May 17, 12:53 AM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, hopefully you've now looked again at the NEWBIES thread post #2, for those answers.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • airman1232
    • By airman1232 13th Jun 17, 8:50 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    airman1232
    Hi Guys,

    This is what I have so far I know its weak but its a start, I have some questions and I once I have answeres I should be in a better place with this.

    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    Claim No.: XXXXXX

    Between

    GLADSTONES SOLICITORS LTD
    (Claimant)
    -and-
    [NAME]
    (Defendant)

    __________________________________________________ _________________________

    WITNESS STATEMENT
    __________________________________________________ _________________________

    I [NAME] of [ADDRESS] am the defendant in this case.

    1. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

    2. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from over two years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.


    3. The claimant has failed to properly respond to my request made on [DATE] by royal mail postal service, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner’s behalf. My request has not been acknowledged.


    I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


    Regarding point #3 above, this was a part 18 request, I can see it was signed for, but I have never recieved a reply.


    Regarding the post on the newbies thread. A, B and C, are these relevant to me, for example I can go to the site and take photos and videos etc, but as this happened some year ago, is this still relevant? They can argue the signage was correct at the time of issueing the PCN?


    D - (Schedule 4 POFA) - I believe this I should use as the NTK was not correct. I have linked to it in a previous post.


    E - (a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper.) This I can use too.


    F - Not applicable in this case


    G - Depening on A,B, C is today signage still relvant if the PCN was issued over two years ago?


    H- Grace periods, again I can use this, however are they under any obligation to note down when the vehicle was first seen and when the PCN was issued, Im unsure if the grace period was in place in 2014?


    I - Not applicable.


    Sorry for all the questions, I just want to get this 100% right.


    Other notes.
    The site is managed by a proprerty management company, who have said to me, they do not have any agreement in place with the parking company who issued the PCN. The previous site property managment company did have an agreement with the parking company that issued the PCN. I have no idea when/if it had an expiry date etc.


    The Property Management company looking after the resedential side and resedential bays, does not have any agreements with the parking company that issued the PCN.


    My request for information from the parking company that issued the PCN has been ignored. They are not registed with the ICO when I checked. Do they have a legal requirement to be? Can I inlcude my this request was not acknowged, it not relating to gladstone but relates to the case?



    They have previosuley been suspend from the BPA - No Proof.


    .............this is stessful, cant wait for it to be over.
    • airman1232
    • By airman1232 17th Jun 17, 9:03 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    airman1232
    Hey, Guys.

    Im going to send this on Monday morning, I know your all busy enjoying your weekend, better than mine I hope just done an office move been up since 5am.

    Just wondering if anyone can review this before I send, if not no worries. I appreciate all your help so far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jun 17, 10:28 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Regarding the post on the newbies thread. A, B and C, are these relevant to me, for example I can go to the site and take photos and videos etc, but as this happened some year ago, is this still relevant? They can argue the signage was correct at the time of issuing the PCN?
    They could, but they have to show their evidence to you as well. So if you suspect the signs might be the same, go and get some pics of them obscured by foliage, etc.!


    I'm unsure if the grace period was in place in 2014?
    You can look at previous versions of the CoP, but were AM Parking in the BPA then or the IPC, you'd have to check.


    My request for information from the parking company that issued the PCN has been ignored. They are not registed with the ICO when I checked. Do they have a legal requirement to be? Can I inlcude my this request was not acknowged, it not relating to gladstone but relates to the case?
    They MUST be ICO registered, maybe under a trading name? And they should certainly respond to requests for information, from a consumer.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • airman1232
    • By airman1232 7th Jul 17, 12:10 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    airman1232
    Thanks all for your help.

    Unfortuantely I lost this one.
    The judge ruled that on the chance of probability I was likely be the driver I was really annoyed and don't remember much beyond this point. I need to pay around £208.

    The Judge didnt seem to care that:
    1. Gladstones didnt reply to my part 18 request.
    2. AM Secure didnt reply to my Data Protection Request. - Said this is a seperate matter and I should raise with with the relevant parties (ICO)
    3. POFA 8 (5) - the judge said he want not familiar with this law and did not have the text books to look it up.
    4. Said the signange was irrelevant and it was marked on the floor saying 'Private Bay' and as I did not have a permit to park there.
    5. Also raised that Gladstones didnt send the Witnress Statement within the 14 day, however he said this was irrelevant.

    So annoyed right now, I certainly feel hard don, but I don't want to waste any more eneergy on this. So I think im jsut going to pay.

    Once again, I would like to thank you all for your help.
    Last edited by airman1232; 07-07-2017 at 12:12 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Jul 17, 1:18 PM
    • 15,962 Posts
    • 24,779 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    What a sad, misguided judgment. The main points of dismissal have been accepted many more times in other similar cases - 'presumption of driver', 'PoFA', 'forbidding signage'.

    I'm sorry it turned out this way for you, understand your anger and frustration and why your (emotional) energy levels are sapped.

    DJ bingo in full evidence.

    Are you going hit back on the data protection front via the ICO, once the dust has settled?
    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.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 7th Jul 17, 4:15 PM
    • 10,253 Posts
    • 9,388 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    Bad decisions such as this are precisely why I caution us being super-over-confident of our advice and offering 100% success to members.

    Sure, our advice has helped a overwhelming number of motorists avoid paying these leeches, but we must always point out that uninformed, rogue judges abound and can produce bizarre judgments.

    We are not aware of the financial positions of all OPs and it is their money at risk. I believe in giving them all the help and advice but never to persuade them that they are on a cast iron win.

    I am truly sorry, airman1232, you should not have lost and the help you were given was all good. But when someone isn't up to speed with the law................
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jul 17, 5:20 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Thanks all for your help.

    Unfortuantely I lost this one.
    The judge ruled that on the chance of probability I was likely be the driver I was really annoyed and don't remember much beyond this point. I need to pay around £208.

    The Judge didnt seem to care that:
    1. Gladstones didnt reply to my part 18 request.
    2. AM Secure didnt reply to my Data Protection Request. - Said this is a seperate matter and I should raise with with the relevant parties (ICO)
    3. POFA 8 (5) - the judge said he want not familiar with this law and did not have the text books to look it up.
    4. Said the signange was irrelevant and it was marked on the floor saying 'Private Bay' and as I did not have a permit to park there.
    5. Also raised that Gladstones didnt send the Witnress Statement within the 14 day, however he said this was irrelevant.

    So annoyed right now, I certainly feel hard don, but I don't want to waste any more eneergy on this. So I think im jsut going to pay.


    Once again, I would like to thank you all for your help.
    Originally posted by airman1232
    Almost unheard of, and inexcusable that the judge would not consider the POFA 2012, which is a statute which the Judge could have looked up easily. Which court?

    Not Wigan, was it? Or Swansea?

    This woud be worth appealing, it seems. There appear to be issues where the Judge erred in law.

    ''Signage is irrelevant''. So, the bay lines told you about the £100 parking charge, did they?

    And the Judge thought that an assumption could be made about the driver, with no evidence?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-07-2017 at 5:22 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • airman1232
    • By airman1232 15th Jul 17, 5:56 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    airman1232
    Thanks Guys for the comments.

    I have put this on a credit card and will pay it over the next couple of months.

    It was Maidstone court. I have considered appealing, but I think that I don't even want to waste any more energy on this. Do you know the cost of appealing, also could they gain more if I loose agin?

    I will certainly be following up with the ICO, these cowboys deserved to be closed down.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jul 17, 9:36 PM
    • 51,886 Posts
    • 65,532 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think an appeal costs £100, and you would need to state that the Judge erred in law (and how). I can understand if you don't want to go any further and we hope you fight back with a complaint to the ICO, your MP and Trading Standards about the scam.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, 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

656Posts Today

4,804Users online

Martin's Twitter