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
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 30th May 17, 8:43 PM
    • 27Posts
    • 27Thanks
    mlang88
    Please put me out of my misery...
    • #1
    • 30th May 17, 8:43 PM
    Please put me out of my misery... 30th May 17 at 8:43 PM
    I have just read bargepole's thread on irrelevant defences and would just like someone to tell me whether or not any of these are permissible at all (I've got a court date - SIPS & Gladstones)

    - Parked in the car park 10 times previously, have evidence and was never issued a ticket
    - Paid for parking on the day
    - I know the 'but there was no loss to the claimant' argument is considered a dead duck, but in this instance they were £2 up from me (pushing it a bit far perhaps?) and there's a £2 car park literally across the way, so no real gain for me to park there?
    - I appealed the original 'PCN' on the grounds that I thought the SIPS warden hadn't seen my ticket, but this was rejected and the charge doubled (at which point I decided £65 was ridiculous)
    - My MP has even been in touch with them to try and lower the charge to the original £35 but no avail
    Please help!!

    Just want to know whether or not I even have a case at all or whether or not I should just take whatever punishment they have for me

    Thanks in advance
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jun 17, 9:29 PM
    • 46,935 Posts
    • 60,277 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If yours was a PCN on the windscreen then ANPR cameras are not relevant, so you can remove that bit.

    You can adapt yours to be more like this one, which uses the Olley v Marlborough Court case and Jolley v Carmel and has other similarities:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72425544#post72425544

    Feel free to plagiarise some of that as I could see several bits that would fit your case. Beefs it up a bit more!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

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

    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 1st Jun 17, 10:17 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    mlang88
    Just made the following addition to my defence - taken out the frustration of contract as, having read the Maritime National Fish case - felt like the 'impossibility' was the fault of one of the parties in this instance. Anyway, here is the additional arguments:

    iii. (a) Denning LJ in!Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking![1971] held that the courts should not hold any man bound by such a condition unless it was ''drawn to his attention in the most explicit way'' and that the contract takes place when the payment is made.
    (b) Also relevant is Olley v Marlborough Court Hotel![1949] 1 KB 532 is on all fours with my case and is binding case law supporting the contention that any other terms come 'too late' if they are only known about afterwards. The case stands for the proposition that a representation made by one party cannot become a term of a contract if only known after the agreement was made.!
    (c) The representation - in this case a 'parking charge' (penalty for parking a vehicle in a manner which did not breach ill-conceived signage) can only be binding where that charge was agreed/the bargain made, at the time the contract was formed. Denning LJ held that a clause a consumer can only learn about after the contract was allegedly formed was too late to be incorporated into the contract:!''The first question is whether that notice formed part of the contract. ... The hotel company no doubt hope that the guest will be held bound by them, but...the ticket comes too late...'
    3 i. The fact the defendant made reasonable endeavours and cannot be penalised under UK contract law is also a circumstance supported by trite law. Authority for this is the case of!Jolley v Carmel Ltd![2000] 2 EGLR 154, where it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms.!I believe – in this case – that reasonable endeavours include procuring a parking ticket for the stay in the site managed by the Claimant, from a Pay & Display machine, having read the terms with I believe to be misleading.

    4. ii. In addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £100, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported ‘Solicitor’s Costs’ of!£50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.!!

    iii. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, SIPS Car Parks Ltd have not expended such a sum on my case. They employ salaried in-house Solicitors and file hundreds of similar robo-claims per week, not incurring any legal cost per case. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary.

    iv. The added 'legal' cost is an artificially invented figure (carefully avoided in the!Beavis!case where only £85 was pursued, presumably to avoid just such scrutiny). This is a cynical attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.!


    I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of defence are true
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jun 17, 11:17 PM
    • 46,935 Posts
    • 60,277 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looking better, two changes suggested, because SIP don't employ solicitors in-house:

    I believe – in this case – that reasonable endeavours include procuring a parking ticket for the stay in the site managed by the Claimant, from a Pay & Display machine, having read the terms at that machine and complied with them. with I believe to be misleading.


    4 iii. Whilst £50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, SIPS Car Parks Ltd have not expended such a sum on my case. They employ salaried in-house Solicitors use Gladstones who do not come to this matter with clean hands, since their Directors also run the Trade Body (IPC) and the so-called Independent Appeals Service where it has been publicised that they advertise to entice new member firms that some 80% of appeals will go in favour of the parking firm members. As for claims, each claim has a £50 legal cost added onto the original ticket value. When claims go undefended and are awarded by default, these charges are automatically awarded. Gladstones file hundreds of similar robo-claims per week, carrying out no scrutiny of facts or contract before issuing proceedings. I put the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary and to evidence the £50 'cost' added to an already-inflated 'parking charge', an unconscionable amount not saved by any legitimate interest.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

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

    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 1st Jun 17, 11:33 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    mlang88
    Looking better, two changes suggested, because SIP don't employ solicitors in-house:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Brilliant - I can't thank you enough for your assistance on this, and to all others who have submitted responses. I was genuinely ready to give this up about a week ago, but I am very glad I haven't now. Even if this isn't successful, I'll be satisfied that I was able to fight back. I shall submit this tomorrow, using the advice provided. (I've spaced correctly, and included the claimant v defendant part at the top on the version I am to send).

    Thanks again
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 14th Jun 17, 1:32 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    mlang88
    Hi all - had a letter delivered from Gladstones (to the incorrect address, even though I told them otherwise)

    hxxxp://i.imgur.com/SLbMNGu.jpg

    I know there are directions on here of how to proceed, I was just wondering if this is a fairly standard letter again that they issue? As most others appear that way. Was also wondering if most just go to court anyway? I ask this because I feel I have a fairly compelling argument and (perhaps stupidly) hoped they'd see it and decide against taking it further.

    Cheers
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 14th Jun 17, 2:07 PM
    • 13,142 Posts
    • 20,527 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    http://i.imgur.com/SLbMNGu.jpg

    I think you have enough posts to be able to post 'live' links now. No need to 'hxxp' any more.

    Was also wondering if most just go to court anyway? I ask this because I feel I have a fairly compelling argument and (perhaps stupidly) hoped they'd see it and decide against taking it further.
    You're making the mistake of thinking that someone at Gladstones reads responses. It's robo-claiming on an industrial scale. Maybe near the final part of the process some human eyes will glance over this.

    Regardless of you believing you have a 'fairly compelling argument', their role is to pressurise you into paying. You must continue to jump through the hoops and continue defending this, otherwise you will lose by default - and they know this, and is all part of their tactic.

    This letter needs dealing with. Type 'Gladstones dealt with on the papers' into the search box of this forum ('Show Posts', not 'Show Threads') for advice on dealing with the letter.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 14-06-2017 at 2:09 PM.
    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.
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 14th Jun 17, 2:14 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    mlang88
    This letter needs dealing with. Type 'Gladstones dealt with on the papers' into the search box of this forum ('Show Posts', not 'Show Threads') for advice on dealing with the letter.[/QUOTE]

    Great thanks for the direction, I'll take a look.

    I did assume that this was just a continuation of the tactics they'd used earlier on in this thrilling saga, i think you could quite easily be fooled into thinking these letters were personalised. I am determined to fight this. Cheers
    • mlang88
    • By mlang88 14th Jun 17, 2:23 PM
    • 27 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    mlang88
    Just read directions from Redx, directing me towards a post made by Bargepole which has a clear process to follow. Cheers!
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

190Posts Today

1,599Users online

Martin's Twitter