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
    • zx6rider
    • By zx6rider 5th Mar 17, 12:53 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 4Thanks
    zx6rider
    ES / Gladstones claim Urgent initial view needed
    • #1
    • 5th Mar 17, 12:53 PM
    ES / Gladstones claim Urgent initial view needed 5th Mar 17 at 12:53 PM
    Good day all, I am hoping for some advice having read the newbies stuff and a good trawl through what has been written. I am a little behind the curve on this as it is on behalf of my son (the registered keeper of the vehicle) who is working abroad with only modest web access and of course no paperwork so it is a bit of catch up.
    In short the vehicle received a windscreen ticket while parked overnight (11pm-8am) on a paved area in front of an apartment block. The driver was visiting a resident who had advised it would be ok.
    The ticket was ignored, the follow up letters were too (mainly as he is out of the country) until the roboclaim arrived. (can post redacted copy). Particulars are:
    "The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXXX incurred the parking charge(s) on nn/10/2016 for breaching the terms of parking at xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
    the defendant was driving and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.
    AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
    £150 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs of £2.66 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.03 per day.

    This claim has been acknowledged so now need to submit defence.
    I visited the site to check on signs - there are some there now but who knows at the time - they are the standard no parking/stopping type. (can post photo).

    I do appreciate there is not a lot of time to submit the defence and would appreciate any advice and guidance on the scope or type of defence if any. I was looking at the particulars and wondered if they are deficient or indeed do the signs actual constitute and sort of contract and what breach if any occurred.

    If the answer proves to be tough luck there is not much wrong with it then I will simply tell him to put it down to experience and pay (albeit Dad always seems to get roped in to that part too). However if there is some prospect of defending this or achieving a better result then I more than happy to help him.

    Any help is much appreciated.
    Last edited by zx6rider; 05-03-2017 at 1:25 PM. Reason: Added PoC details and updated title
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 5th Mar 17, 1:39 PM
    • 40,462 Posts
    • 80,845 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 5th Mar 17, 1:39 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Mar 17, 1:39 PM
    Have you read the bargepole guide to court linked from post 1 of the NEWBIES thread? This tells you what to do and when, and also how to fill in some of the court forms.

    If the signs say no stopping/parking then they are forbidding and cannot form a contract. You can post pics by uploading them to a web hosting site (in a false name) such as tinypic or photobucket, then post the URL here but change http to hxxp. Someone here will then convert them to a live link.

    Hopefully one of the more court savvy regulars will be along soon to help.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • zx6rider
    • By zx6rider 5th Mar 17, 9:23 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    zx6rider
    • #3
    • 5th Mar 17, 9:23 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Mar 17, 9:23 PM
    Thanks fruitcake. Yes I have read the guide and am ok with the timings and process stuff just not all that sure on the legality issue and whether it is worth pursuing a defence. Sounds like it might be. I will try and get some links sorted in the next hour or so.
    • zx6rider
    • By zx6rider 5th Mar 17, 11:08 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    zx6rider
    • #4
    • 5th Mar 17, 11:08 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Mar 17, 11:08 PM
    Here is link to the no parking/stopping sign from ES:
    hxxp://tinypic.com/r/1z216qq/9

    This is the claim form (redacted)
    hxxp://tinypic.com/r/34hyuxh/9
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Mar 17, 11:17 PM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 5th Mar 17, 11:17 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Mar 17, 11:17 PM
    Thanks fruitcake. Yes I have read the guide and am ok with the timings and process stuff just not all that sure on the legality issue and whether it is worth pursuing a defence. Sounds like it might be. I will try and get some links sorted in the next hour or so.
    Originally posted by zx6rider
    We've never seen anyone here lose a Gladstones case, I don't think. I can count the losses in a year on one hand (maybe two lost v UKPC and one BW Legal reported on here...). Hundreds won or stayed with no hearing, time after time we hear of cases won.

    Definitely worth the fight on a point of principle and to cost them money and because your chances of success here are about 99%, can't be bettered I am sure.

    One defence point will be, the signs attempt to forbid parking completely, like in PCM v Bull:

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1z216qq&s=9#.WLybSvmLTIU

    Your claim form:

    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=34hyuxh&s=9#.WLybnvmLTIU

    Jamie Ashford again!

    Here's a badly-pleaded incoherent claim re an ES parking PCN that Gladstones mucked up:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/gladstones-lies-catch-up-with-them.html

    Show us your draft defence, search the forum for 'Gladstones defence forbidding' or 'Gladstone defence preliminary matters' and you should find a similar one written already, to crib from.

    HTH
    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.

    • zx6rider
    • By zx6rider 6th Mar 17, 8:11 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    zx6rider
    • #6
    • 6th Mar 17, 8:11 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Mar 17, 8:11 PM
    Ok Coupon_Mad, after much reading and cribbing - thank you to all previous posters, here is the defence - any other words of wisdom, improvements or critique would be most welcome......

    1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not driving and did not park the vehicle on the material date.

    2) It is denied that any indemnity costs are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    3) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

    4) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

    5) As an unrepresented consumer I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

    6) This claim merely states: “parking charges for breaching the terms of parking on the land at xxxxxx" with an unsubstantiated claim of "£150 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable” which does not adequately describe the basis on which the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable'.

    7) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

    8) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    9) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

    10) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

    11) The alleged debt as vaguely described in the claim amounts to unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

    12. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum at all without 'agreement on the charge'. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was held to be allowable to act as a disincentive in that case only, based upon very specific and unique facts in a 'complex' case involving the existence of a specific legitimate interest from the landowners regarding turnover of parking spaces and very clear, brief and prominent signs. It was held at the Court of Appeal that a parking charge sum of £135 would fail the penalty rule. The authority for this is 'Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012)'.

    13) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott vs Loake(1982) in which there was irrefutable evidence of the drivers identity. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with and the claimant may not quote reasonable assumption. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

    14) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. Furthermore, as in the case PCM v Bull there is no evidence to support additional costs having been incurred by the claimant. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste' is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

    15) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

    16) Should the claim be for breach of contract, and it remains unclear on this point, then the defendant denies there is or was any contract implied or otherwise. As in the case PCM v Bull, the signs at the location are forbidding and serve as a notice of absolute prohibition against parking at any time and cannot constitute a contract.

    17) Should the claim be for trespass, and it remains unclear on this point, there is no evidence to support that the claimant has any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.

    18) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    19) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    19. I put the Claimant to strict proof that it issued a compliant notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, no keeper liability can apply, due to this Claimant's PCN not complying with Schedule 4.
    • NorthWestITConsultant
    • By NorthWestITConsultant 6th Mar 17, 8:42 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    NorthWestITConsultant
    • #7
    • 6th Mar 17, 8:42 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Mar 17, 8:42 PM
    Hi zx6rider

    I'm here to help. I've just been through a court case with them and lost - I know where I went wrong and I can help you beat them. For now have a look at a few cases on the consumer action group (can't type full links yet!):

    This lady won against them:
    467103-ES-Parking-Gladstone-claimforn-PCN-Spinningfields-Manchester

    This is my case:
    469161-ES-Parking-Gladstone-court-case-PCN-Spinningfields-Manchester
    • zx6rider
    • By zx6rider 6th Mar 17, 9:33 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    zx6rider
    • #8
    • 6th Mar 17, 9:33 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Mar 17, 9:33 PM
    Thanks NorthWestIT. Had a look at them and of course every one is slightly different and to some extent may depend on the judge's view of related cases.
    Sadly I am right up against it as it is on behalf of my son who works abroad so it was only at the 11th hour I got involved and have never given any of the legal process much thought. I met the AoS deadline at the last moment and then got tied up with my own job so this is all last minute - the deadline is tomorrow for the defence so as long as it is coherent and catches the main arguments around no actual contract and vague PoC then I can get something in. Will need to then do some research on land registry, DVLA request etc and ask ES for a bunch of details.
    • NorthWestITConsultant
    • By NorthWestITConsultant 6th Mar 17, 9:41 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    NorthWestITConsultant
    • #9
    • 6th Mar 17, 9:41 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Mar 17, 9:41 PM
    Thanks NorthWestIT. Had a look at them and of course every one is slightly different and to some extent may depend on the judge's view of related cases.
    Sadly I am right up against it as it is on behalf of my son who works abroad so it was only at the 11th hour I got involved and have never given any of the legal process much thought. I met the AoS deadline at the last moment and then got tied up with my own job so this is all last minute - the deadline is tomorrow for the defence so as long as it is coherent and catches the main arguments around no actual contract and vague PoC then I can get something in. Will need to then do some research on land registry, DVLA request etc and ask ES for a bunch of details.
    Originally posted by zx6rider
    You will need to practice your points before hand and be prepared for a real fraudster. I'll help as much as I can. Ericsbrother on the consumactiongroup can help you with the WS. I appreciate it's all last minute so may need to do as best as you can.
    • zx6rider
    • By zx6rider 14th Jun 17, 12:01 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    zx6rider
    update on the case - successful outcome
    I thought I would share with you the result of making a defence and not being bullied into paying an "invoice" from one of these parking companies.
    Having written the defence and met the timescales of the court process I received the witness statement from Gladstones with a few photos etc and a copy of the ES contract with the landowner. I thought OK, we will have to attend the court.
    The following day to my delight I received a single page from the court stating.......they had not paid the court fee and the case had been struck out! We could even claim costs too!!
    That has made my day and demonstrates that they are robo-claims and that there is not a professional set-up dealing with these things.
    Anyway thanks to all who replied and all who have previously contributed on the forum. This is a very helpful facility.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 14th Jun 17, 12:09 PM
    • 6,328 Posts
    • 8,139 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Great news zx6rider

    As has been said many times, Gladstones are simply very
    incompetent solicitors

    Very difficult to understand why PPC's use them because once
    Gladstones are involved, winning for a PPC is drastically reduced

    "Gladstones, you have Gladstoned yourself"

    This is incompetence at it's highest level
    Last edited by beamerguy; 14-06-2017 at 12:13 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jun 17, 12:40 PM
    • 15,423 Posts
    • 24,121 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The following day to my delight I received a single page from the court stating.......they had not paid the court fee and the case had been struck out! We could even claim costs too!!
    Well, are you going to?
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 17, 10:19 PM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I thought I would share with you the result of making a defence and not being bullied into paying an "invoice" from one of these parking companies.
    Having written the defence and met the timescales of the court process I received the witness statement from Gladstones with a few photos etc and a copy of the ES contract with the landowner. I thought OK, we will have to attend the court.
    The following day to my delight I received a single page from the court stating.......they had not paid the court fee and the case had been struck out! We could even claim costs too!!
    That has made my day and demonstrates that they are robo-claims and that there is not a professional set-up dealing with these things.
    Anyway thanks to all who replied and all who have previously contributed on the forum. This is a very helpful facility.
    Originally posted by zx6rider

    Great news!! Well done. We almost NEVER see anyone report a loss on here.


    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.

    • zx6rider
    • By zx6rider 15th Jun 17, 8:27 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    zx6rider
    Well, are you going to?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Probably not, the satisfaction of it being struck out is enough and I would probably feel like I was descending to their level if I did.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Jun 17, 10:08 AM
    • 15,423 Posts
    • 24,121 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Probably not, the satisfaction of it being struck out is enough and I would probably feel like I was descending to their level if I did.
    Originally posted by zx6rider
    It's clearly your call, but before making a final decision, just consider the proposition that if as well as losing their court case they have to make an actual cost payment to their intended victim, they might just think twice before issuing court papers to someone else.

    And don't forget, if they had beaten you, they wouldn't be satisfied with a pyrrhic victory - they'd have taken you for every penny they could.
    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.
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

107Posts Today

1,571Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I believe I can boldly go where no twitter poll has gone before https://t.co/HA0jC92gAK

  • OK I'm wilting to public pressure and there will be a star trek captain's poll at some point next week

  • I can get that. My order is 1. Picard 2. Janeway 3. Kirk. Too early to say where Lorca will end up (or would you? https://t.co/kawtCOe9RA

  • Follow Martin