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
    • snnl
    • By snnl 18th May 17, 3:45 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 20Thanks
    snnl
    PCM & Gladstones
    • #1
    • 18th May 17, 3:45 PM
    PCM & Gladstones 18th May 17 at 3:45 PM
    Hi All,

    I'm Currently battling two 'PCNs' and I do have another thread on here (h**ps://goo.gl/kcP0sa) but that's for ECP and wanted to keep these separate.

    I'm after a little bit more advice regarding a letter from Gladstones. Quick back story...

    So, I am the registered keeper of this vehicle and on the 12/12/16 it was driven and parked in a PCM car park at Bluewater shopping center where it received a windscreen ticket. This all happened while I was at work some 15 miles away (my company can confirm this) so I am unaware of the driver of the car that day and thus defending as the RK.

    Following some old and bad family advice, it was ignored and no appeals lodged think it was a load of !!!!. Since then I have had 2 letters from Trace Debt recovery and, following the newbies thread, I ignored them.

    However this morning I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors: h**p://imgur.com/a/ohj5Y

    Is this an LBC? Or are the just playing the whole 'debt collector' role in a vain attempt to scare me in to paying? I did note in the letter that it doesn't state its a LBC anywhere and only says they 'may take legal' action.

    I just don't want to miss anything here. They do (laughably) invite me (how kind of them) to make a payment immediately or 'confirm to us in writing your proposals in respect of this debt'.

    As they are a solicitor ( ) know for issuing legal proceedings is now the time to send a stern letter refuting this and saying I will defend in court? Or Is it just another 'debt collector' letter printed on GS paper to be filled away.

    Cheers for the advice.
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 18th May 17, 3:54 PM
    • 40,419 Posts
    • 80,738 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 18th May 17, 3:54 PM
    • #2
    • 18th May 17, 3:54 PM
    Hi All,

    I'm Currently battling two 'PCNs' and I do have another thread on here (h**ps://goo.gl/kcP0sa) but that's for ECP and wanted to keep these separate.

    I'm after a little bit more advice regarding a letter from Gladstones. Quick back story...

    So, I am the registered keeper of this vehicle and on the 12/12/16 it was driven and parked in a PCM car park at Bluewater shopping center where it received a windscreen ticket. This all happened while I was at work some 15 miles away (my company can confirm this) so I am unaware of the driver of the car that day and thus defending as the RK.

    Following some old and bad family advice, it was ignored and no appeals lodged think it was a load of !!!!. Since then I have had 2 letters from Trace Debt recovery and, following the newbies thread, I ignored them.

    However this morning I received a letter from Gladstones Solicitors: h**p://imgur.com/a/ohj5Y

    Is this an LBC? Or are the just playing the whole 'debt collector' role in a vain attempt to scare me in to paying? I did note in the letter that it doesn't state its a LBC anywhere and only says they 'may take legal' action.

    I just don't want to miss anything here. They do (laughably) invite me (how kind of them) to make a payment immediately or 'confirm to us in writing your proposals in respect of this debt'.

    As they are a solicitor ( ) know for issuing legal proceedings is now the time to send a stern letter refuting this and saying I will defend in court? Or Is it just another 'debt collector' letter printed on GS paper to be filled away.

    Cheers for the advice.
    Originally posted by snnl
    http://imgur.com/a/ohj5Y

    Since their client is the parking scammers, not a DCA, then I think it is a LBC and you need to respond to it as such.
    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
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 18th May 17, 4:09 PM
    • 561 Posts
    • 991 Thanks
    safarmuk
    • #3
    • 18th May 17, 4:09 PM
    • #3
    • 18th May 17, 4:09 PM
    It does appear to be from Gladstones and not a Debt Recovery Co. masquerading as Gladstones as the payment options are to Gladstones and not to the Debt Recovery Co.

    However it doesn't appear to be a LBC - it is not titled as such.

    You can rebut at this point or rebut when you get a LBC, it's up to you. However I doubt any rebuttal will stop this automated garbage coming out. It's more a paper trail you are creating to show you interacted with the computer ...
    • snnl
    • By snnl 18th May 17, 4:18 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    snnl
    • #4
    • 18th May 17, 4:18 PM
    • #4
    • 18th May 17, 4:18 PM
    Thanks for the advice so far!

    Its alarming how unregulated this whole thing is, sending out misleading letters and all that! As it appears to be Gladstone's chasing money now i fully expect them to issue a LBC after that 14 days (or at least in the next few months)

    I think now in Gladstone's hands, and particularly as i've made no contact prior, I will draft up a letter to rebute this claim and get a paper trail going. As you said i highly doubt this will stop the garbage coming out from their HQ but I want them to know they have got a tough fight on their hands should they want to pursue it!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th May 17, 5:44 PM
    • 14,980 Posts
    • 23,531 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 18th May 17, 5:44 PM
    • #5
    • 18th May 17, 5:44 PM
    If the G's reference starts 3******, then that is a debt collector letter. Any different, treat as a LBC, with a robust 'see you in court' response.
    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.
    • snnl
    • By snnl 22nd May 17, 12:15 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    snnl
    • #6
    • 22nd May 17, 12:15 PM
    LBC Response
    • #6
    • 22nd May 17, 12:15 PM
    Hi Everyone, thank you for all your helpful replies. I have spent the past couple days looking up a few previous examples and cases and have re-written one to suit my case.

    If you have time can you please review the below and let me know if there is anything I can change/add etc.

    Many Thanks.

    snnl

    ----------

    "Dear Sirs,

    Re: Parking Control (UK) Limited

    Reference
    101xxx.xxxxx

    I note your letter dated 12th May 2017, received 18th May 2017, and am treating this letter as a letter before claim.

    I deny that I owe any debt to your client, Parking Control (UK) Limited

    I intend to defend any claim and I invite you to advise your client to withdraw at this early stage, before costs are incurred in defending a claim against me as registered keeper. I believe any claim by Parking Control (UK) Limited is baseless and misconceived and is bound to fail.!

    Due to local knowledge and having inspected the signs at the location before responding to your letter, I am aware that whilst your client's signage is displayed at the material location, the terms are illegible from a driver’s seat as they are affixed to pillars which are high up, out of clear sight and fail the test of large lettering. There is no signage on entry to Bluewater, no signage on the entrances to any of the individual car parks and lastly no signage on any of the main entrances from the car park to the shopping complex itself that will make the drive aware there are any T&Cs to park. As it is a free car park, one is not looking for any signs for parking. The signage is, therefore, incapable of creating any contractual liability on the part of any driver, as any purported contractual terms are void for uncertainty.

    Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the driver at the material time. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTK in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended.
    Indeed, I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had PCM evidenced the driver in their NTK, I would have passed the purported 'PCN' to that driver, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law. This position is entirely due to the choice of your client when drawing up a Notice to Keeper (NTK) document which does not in any way attempt to use nor rely upon the rights they might otherwise have been able to claim, under the Protection of Freedoms Act (the POFA) Schedule 4.

    The NTK are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on that occasion. I can in fact prove, by letter of my employer, that I was not at the location in question and was in fact at work some 15 miles away.
    Should you attempt to rely upon the cases of!Elliott v Loake!(irrelevant criminal case) and or!Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films!(irrelevant employee/employer commercial liability issue), you should be aware and fairly warned now, to advise your client that these have never been reported as persuasive or even applicable to any robustly-defended private parking case.

    Your client need to be aware of several recent cases where the Judges ruled!Elliott v Loake!as not relevant or applicable, including!Excel v Mr C!C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016, and!Excel v Mr B!C7DP8F83 at Sheffield 14/12/2016. Further,!Excel v Lamoureux!at Skipton C3DP56Q5 involved three unreasonable claims in which DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds examined the Parking Operator's NTK and found that it did not comply with the POFA. The claimant was warned not to bring further baseless non-POFA cases to that Court and were forced to discontinue the final vexatious claim. This transcript will be adduced in evidence in my defence:

    hxxp://nebula.wsimg.com/ab774da5f40c5d7082d483820e2241cb?AccessKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

    In your clients demand, your client has added in costs/administrative charges which are not defined in any contractual document. It is my belief that your client's additional costs are arbitrary and unsubstantiated and are an attempt at double recovery, which cannot be supported on the small claims track. Should your client attempt to rely upon another commonly trotted-out case in these baseless robo-claims for parking operators, namely!Chaplair Ltd vs Kumari![2015] this can easily be distinguished from this matter, since that was an irrelevant decision about contractual fees set in lease terms, not 'costs' fabricated by a parking firm who already make a significant profit from paid 'PCNs' as was found in!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis![2015], where I would remind you that the parking firm were only entitled to claim for the £85 charge itself. For example, this sum was held to be more than sufficient to cover the very minimal cost of operating a generic ANPR camera 'enforcement regime' with a few template letters generated automatically.!

    Since the POFA also states that the only sum that can be claimed from a registered keeper (subject to full compliance with Schedule 4) is the sum stated on the NTK itself - not allowing double recovery - it is clear that it is neither within the intentions of Parliament, nor was it held by the Supreme Court, that any parking firm can add further costs dressed up as 'damages' or loss, over and above the artificially high/already inflated parking charge sum itself.

    If your client will not withdraw, then I ask for your response to the matters above and for the following documents:

    i. The contract (or chain of contracts) between your client and the site landowner - not a site agent or other non-landholder - giving your client authority to carry out parking management and on what terms;

    ii. Any and all photographs taken of my car on the material dates;

    iii. A copy of any document your client asserts sets out the terms of the alleged contract between it and a driver (this may be the same as!iv!below);

    iv. A copy of the signs on display and a dated plan of where in the car park they were displayed on those dates;

    These are core documents, central to your client’s claim. As such, they are documents which are required to have been produced at an early stage (regardless of whether or not I asked for them) in this pre-action phase, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. I would have expected at the very least, that the contract requested under iii above should have been appended to the Letter Before Claim. I am requesting these documents because I clearly require them in order to be able to prepare a proper defence to any Claim and/or a meaningful POPLA appeal, as is my entitlement. The CPR clearly anticipate an early exchange of information, as per paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, Rule 16 and Practice Direction 16 – any failure to produce the information I have asked for will be nothing other than a deliberate attempt to frustrate my ability to defend the claim and a failure to comply with pre-action obligations.

    Any failure by you/your client, to enter into meaningful dialogue in order to avoid unnecessary litigation will mean that you will have denied me the opportunity to “take stock” pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction, or to enter into discussions with you pursuant to paragraph 13. I will seek the sanctions provided for by paragraph 15 of the Practice Direction.!

    I require you and your client to cease and desist. To be clear, I decline any invitation to name the driver and this is my lawful right. There the matter must end, because Parking Control (UK) Limited have no lawful excuse to use my DVLA data beyond the very basic cause, of enquiring as to the driver's identity. A line must now be drawn under this exchange.!

    I expect a substantive response with the documents and or confirmation of cancellation of this PCN within 14 days of this letter.

    Yours faithfully,"
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 22nd May 17, 12:37 PM
    • 14,980 Posts
    • 23,531 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 22nd May 17, 12:37 PM
    • #7
    • 22nd May 17, 12:37 PM
    Skim read (very quick glance) looks okay - but who is Parking Control (UK) Limited? You need precision especially if this is nearing the legal-end of things.
    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.
    • snnl
    • By snnl 22nd May 17, 12:47 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    snnl
    • #8
    • 22nd May 17, 12:47 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd May 17, 12:47 PM
    Thanks for the quick read Umkomaas!

    And good spot, it should be Parking Control Management (UK) Limited aka PCM UK - corrected on my document.

    Also, can anyone tell me for certain that PCMs NTKs are not POFA compliant? I stated that fact in my reply but am not 100% sure if i understood it correctly. I am happy to scan and post the NTKs sent to me.

    Cheers
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 22nd May 17, 1:00 PM
    • 14,980 Posts
    • 23,531 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 22nd May 17, 1:00 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd May 17, 1:00 PM
    Also, can anyone tell me for certain that PCMs NTKs are not POFA compliant? I stated that fact in my reply but am not 100% sure if i understood it correctly. I am happy to scan and post the NTKs sent to me.
    Better you check (and learn from this) yourself, because if you're going to argue it in court, you have to be right on top of your game in persuading the judge that it's not compliant.

    You will need to check that your NtK complies fully (not 90%) with PoFA for their keeper liability assertion to stand. You check it pedantically (and I mean absolutely pedantically), word by word, line by line against PoFA Schedule 4, para 8 for a windscreen ticket, para 9 for an ANPR ticket.

    Here's where you start.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/
    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.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 22nd May 17, 1:31 PM
    • 7,181 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    The Deep
    Personally, I do not think that this is an LBA. It states "our client may instruct us ...". No threats, no mention of CPRs, but, I suppose, better to be safe that sorry.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • snnl
    • By snnl 22nd May 17, 2:21 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    snnl
    Personally, I do not think that this is an LBA. It states "our client may instruct us ...". No threats, no mention of CPRs, but, I suppose, better to be safe that sorry.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    Yeah, I see what you mean.

    But my way of thinking now is to grab the bull by the horns and try and shut this claim down now. Being a 'robo-claim' i doubt it will do much. I may re-work the opening and state that this letter is misleading and thus treating it as an LBC.

    I'm sure I saw a thread with something similar! will have to browse the archives again.
    • snnl
    • By snnl 24th May 17, 10:53 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    snnl
    Response to Letter
    Hi Guys,

    I have been through all letters from PCM, the NtD, NtK and subsequent Debt collector letters and I am pretty much sure that the NtD and NtK are POFA compliant. So i am going to rule that out as part of my argument for now.

    If anyone is interested and wants to check for themselves I've uploaded the images here:
    NtD - http://imgur.com/aif3rP8
    1st NtK - http://imgur.com/KF6mkMB
    2nd NtK - http://imgur.com/E6u4qrm

    However, I have gone through the IPC code of practice and this is where the woefully fail on their signage and this is what I will be heavily attacking. So please see my latest version of my reply here:

    "Dear Sirs,

    Re: Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

    Reference
    101775.11605

    I note your letter dated 12th May 2017, received 18th May 2017.

    First, I deny any debt to PCM!UK Limited and any court proceedings you may bring will be vigorously defended.
    Secondly, as solicitors, there is no reference to your letter being fully compliant with the Practice Direction, it is in fact woefully defective and appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the recipient if it is intended as a LBC.

    Therefore, I will vigorously defend any claim and I invite you to advise your client to withdraw at this early stage, before costs are incurred in defending a claim against me as registered keeper. I believe any claim by Parking Control Management (UK) Limited is baseless and misconceived and is bound to fail.!

    Due to local knowledge and having inspected the signs at the location before responding to your letter, I am aware that whilst your client's signage is displayed at the material location, the terms are illegible from a driver’s seat as they are affixed to pillars which are high up, out of clear sight and fail the test of large lettering.
    There are no signs on entry to Bluewater, no signage on the entrances to any of the individual car parks and lastly no signage on any of the main entrances from the car park to the shopping complex itself to indicate you are entering private land that is managed by PCM. Therefore, the signs erected on site do not conform to the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs (that should be) and are used. They are therefore, again, incapable of forming the basis of a contract.!

    As it is a free car park, one is not looking for any signs or for any pay and display machines. The signage is, therefore, incapable of creating any contractual liability on the part of any driver, as any purported contractual terms are void for uncertainty.
    Further, your client has adduced no evidence whatsoever as to the identities of the driver at the material time. There was, of course, no requirement in law for me to respond to the NTK in question, so any suggestion of failure on my part will be robustly defended.

    Indeed, I view the continued - increasingly threatening - demands as harassment. Had PCM evidenced the driver in their NTK, I would have passed the purported 'PCN' to that driver, since these are not matters for which a registered keeper can be held liable in law.

    The NTK are matters for an identified driver only. I am not liable and cannot be lawfully assumed to have been the driver on that occasion. I can in fact prove, by letter of my employer, that I was not at the location in question and was in fact at work some 15 miles away.
    Should you attempt to rely upon the cases of!Elliott v Loake!(irrelevant criminal case) and or!Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films!(irrelevant employee/employer commercial liability issue), you should be aware and fairly warned now, to advise your client that these have never been reported as persuasive or even applicable to any robustly-defended private parking case.

    In your clients demand, your client has added in costs/administrative charges which are not defined in any contractual document. It is my belief that your client's additional costs are arbitrary and unsubstantiated and are an attempt at double recovery, which cannot be supported on the small claims track. Should your client attempt to rely upon another commonly trotted-out case in these baseless robo-claims for parking operators, namely!Chaplair Ltd vs Kumari![2015] this can easily be distinguished from this matter, since that was an irrelevant decision about contractual fees set in lease terms, not 'costs' fabricated by a parking firm who already make a significant profit from paid 'PCNs' as was found in!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis![2015], where I would remind you that the parking firm were only entitled to claim for the £85 charge itself. For example, this sum was held to be more than sufficient to cover the very minimal cost of operating a generic ANPR camera 'enforcement regime' with a few template letters generated automatically.!

    Since the POFA also states that the only sum that can be claimed from a registered keeper (subject to full compliance with Schedule 4) is the sum stated on the NTK itself - not allowing double recovery - it is clear that it is neither within the intentions of Parliament, nor was it held by the Supreme Court, that any parking firm can add further costs dressed up as 'damages' or loss, over and above the artificially high/already inflated parking charge sum itself.

    If your client will not withdraw, then I ask for your response to the matters above and for the following documents:

    i. The contract (or chain of contracts) between your client and the site landowner - not a site agent or other non-landholder - giving your client authority to carry out parking management and on what terms;

    ii. Any and all photographs taken of my car on the material dates;

    iii. A copy of any document your client asserts sets out the terms of the alleged contract between it and a driver (this may be the same as!iv!below);

    iv. A copy of the signs on display and a dated plan of where in the car park they were displayed on those dates;

    These are core documents, central to your client’s claim. As such, they are documents which are required to have been produced at an early stage (regardless of whether or not I asked for them) in this pre-action phase, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. I would have expected at the very least, that the contract requested under iii above should have been appended to the Letter Before Claim. I am requesting these documents because I clearly require them to be able to prepare a proper defence to any Claim as is my entitlement.
    The CPR clearly anticipate an early exchange of information, as per paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, Rule 16 and Practice Direction 16 – any failure to produce the information I have asked for will be nothing other than a deliberate attempt to frustrate my ability to defend the claim and a failure to comply with pre-action obligations.

    Any failure by you/your client, to enter into meaningful dialogue in order to avoid unnecessary litigation will mean that you will have denied me the opportunity to “take stock” pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction, or to enter into discussions with you pursuant to paragraph 13. I will seek the sanctions provided for by paragraph 15 of the Practice Direction.!

    I require you and your client to cease and desist. To be clear, I decline any invitation to name the driver and this is my lawful right. There the matter must end, because Parking Control Management (UK) Limited have no lawful excuse to use my DVLA data beyond the very basic cause, of enquiring as to the driver's identity. A line must now be drawn under this exchange.!

    I expect a substantive response with the documents and or confirmation of cancellation of this PCN within 14 days of this letter.

    Yours faithfully,"

    I've read and re-read but fear I may be blind to my own mistakes so if anyone has time to check it that would be great. I'm looking to post this out either today or tomorrow morning so i'm inside their 14 days window for replies.

    Many Thanks
    Last edited by snnl; 24-05-2017 at 10:54 AM. Reason: I can post links now!
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 24th May 17, 12:37 PM
    • 6,169 Posts
    • 7,891 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Great letter snnl

    I fear that you might be over estimating the intelligence of PCM ?

    They will no doubt reject your request for landowner permission claiming it is sensitive material ..... normal rubbish
    They should be made aware that if they refuse to provide such information, you will ask a court to instruct them

    Be interesting to see their reply
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • snnl
    • By snnl 24th May 17, 1:27 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    snnl
    Thanks beamerguy, I probably am overestimating the intelligence of PCM and Gladstones!

    As i'll be sending this letter to Gladstones, is it also worth sending a second copy to PCM directly with a cover letter? I fear that Gladstones won't pass this on and will continue to issue a claim solely to get their fee for a court appearance etc.

    Cheers
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 24th May 17, 1:37 PM
    • 14,980 Posts
    • 23,531 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thanks beamerguy, I probably am overestimating the intelligence of PCM and Gladstones!

    As i'll be sending this letter to Gladstones, is it also worth sending a second copy to PCM directly with a cover letter? I fear that Gladstones won't pass this on and will continue to issue a claim solely to get their fee for a court appearance etc.

    Cheers
    Originally posted by snnl
    You're basically dealing with a conveyor belt. I doubt that either party will read this; you certainly won't get a bespoke reply. If you are lucky to get a reply at all, a pound to a penny it will be a template. We don't refer to these as robo-claims for no goid reason.

    But the letter will be useful as part of your submissions to the court to show a judge you have attempted to resolve this via ongoing communication.

    I'd save a stamp and just send it to G's as they're the ones writing to you.
    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 24th May 17, 1:40 PM
    • 6,169 Posts
    • 7,891 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Thanks beamerguy, I probably am overestimating the intelligence of PCM and Gladstones!

    As i'll be sending this letter to Gladstones, is it also worth sending a second copy to PCM directly with a cover letter? I fear that Gladstones won't pass this on and will continue to issue a claim solely to get their fee for a court appearance etc.

    Cheers
    Originally posted by snnl
    No harm in doing both
    Gladstones are an apology for a solicitor and the way they behave has shown over and over again that their intelligence level is limited
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • snnl
    • By snnl 24th May 17, 5:25 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    snnl
    You are probably right Umkomaas I highly doubt they will read it and give me a bespoke response, probably just get another templated reply back! I just want to make it clear to them that I am no push over, I will defend this and I will win no matter what they send.

    Only reason I will send PCM one is to make sure they know I've replied to Gladstone, plus as you said it will look good if this does go to court. So if they want to do the smart thing and save a few hundred quid they can cancel it now!

    Cheers for the input again, much appreciated.
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

2,347Posts Today

7,329Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin