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
    • teccom
    • By teccom 31st May 17, 6:55 PM
    • 30Posts
    • 7Thanks
    teccom
    Court Case Gladstones next week, Court bundle finally received!
    • #1
    • 31st May 17, 6:55 PM
    Court Case Gladstones next week, Court bundle finally received! 31st May 17 at 6:55 PM
    Hi All,

    Please assist I have a court date finally received for 2 PCNs where an employee of my company van on a private estate, he explains he was unloading and not there long and as it is the rear of commercial premises/client of ours he has regularly stopped there.

    Anyway previously the company Pace Recovery & Storage t/a ACE SECURITY SERVICES had issued tickets years back but they were not registered with any parking body, so we ignored them and were more concerned how they illegally obtained our information, but that was years ago and this is now, we did receive PCNs 2no, but we ignored not knowing they were now registered with IPC, what followed was a barrage of letters and then a Gladstones LBC.

    We responded with the drivers name to reset the process, but still a couple of weeks later a MCOL claim dropped through.

    We submitted a defence N180, please tell me how to dropbox/link it as it is long, but we used a format on this site of defence, we standby the fact that although the claim is against me as a registered keeper I can demonstrate I was not the driver at the time, and in fact am looking forward to taking to court CCTV footage of me on both occasions elsewhere, I run a CCTV company so have massive amounts of retention!

    The court issued a date "Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)", at my local court as requested, set a date as 9th June, stated the claimant is to pay a fee of £55, file a proper defence (as the original claim had sod all just dates and inflated charges etc.), the Judge also stated the claim would be struck out with effect from 12th May 2017 without further order, I assumed this meant all done but then today at 15:53 I get an email of a small court bundle from Gladstones, with repeat stuff really quite general with different photos etc., evidence never seen by me, but regardless can I contact the court and get it thrown out as the pack they have sent is unreasonable at this late stage and I was actually planning a short break based on the fact the case was to my knowledge cancelled by the court!

    On MCOL it does not show the case as "struck out" so to speak, but neither does it say any court bundle from Gladstones was sent?

    Help appreciated as I am happy to trot along to court and fight!
Page 3
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 2nd Jun 17, 3:26 PM
    • 1,471 Posts
    • 2,744 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    With regards to "vicarious liability"; the claim would have to be brought against the Driver's Employer which would be your company, not you personally.
    It applies where there is a commercial relationship. Typically there is a belief that members of the same family cannot enter into contracts with each other e.g. a contract to do the ironing or tidy rooms. But there can be contracts where there is an intent to have a contract. So if Mr A works for Mr B or carries out commercial work, there is a contract.

    Was there hired and reward? Driver is described as an employee.

    Was the vehicle carrying out commercial work? Appears to be and would/should have the appropriate insurance I presume.

    Was the Keeper engaged in a commercial activity? Was the van (apparently a personal vehicle) actually a commercial one.

    As regards not mentioning it? PPC likely to have picked this one up given the OP's name and date of the case, so would be prepared to have it raised.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • teccom
    • By teccom 2nd Jun 17, 3:39 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    teccom
    I just need to clarify, as this is a little confusing:

    Have they issued the claim to you an an individual person, not to the company?

    Did you give the name and address of the driver at all, before proceedings began?

    Have you got this CCTV as part of the evidence?



    ...because you haven't mentioned the CCTV evidence, here:






    You need to submit your costs schedule/argument before the hearing, so is best taken there today as well. Also, ask the usher about playing your CCTV evidence, will it be OK for you to take a tablet or laptop in on the day or how will they enable your CCTV evidence that you were not driving? Make sure it is mentioned in your WS.




    Have that at the front of the WS.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    It applies where there is a commercial relationship. Typically there is a belief that members of the same family cannot enter into contracts with each other e.g. a contract to do the ironing or tidy rooms. But there can be contracts where there is an intent to have a contract. So if Mr A works for Mr B or carries out commercial work, there is a contract.

    Was there hired and reward? Driver is described as an employee.

    Was the vehicle carrying out commercial work? Appears to be and would/should have the appropriate insurance I presume.

    Was the Keeper engaged in a commercial activity? Was the van (apparently a personal vehicle) actually a commercial one.

    As regards not mentioning it? PPC likely to have picked this one up given the OP's name and date of the case, so would be prepared to have it raised.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    I will be prepared to have it raised, thanks for the input, also I deleted and amended what you stated mate in the latter part of the letter.

    Did I mention my name?

    From what i understand if the Judge accepts the Solicitor/paralegal/whatever to cross examine me I can be have no idea what his is talking about if he tries to reference Forums, and good luck to them as with VL surely I complied with the PoF and that is their whole WS for the case in the first place, of which they have decided to ignore where it suits.
    • teccom
    • By teccom 2nd Jun 17, 4:36 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    teccom
    I would include a request for the case to be struck out and include a version of LoadsofChildren123's costs application:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/mc7xhbc2tsuz384/COSTS%20APPLICATION.docx?dl=0

    You want some costs awarded as punitive measure at the court's discretion - so try that! Adapt it to suit, of course.

    Include the proof that you did give the driver's name and address already. And include the point in schedule 4 that says a keeper discharges liability if they give the name and serviceable address of the driver, before proceedings commence.

    The Judge will not do this for you and will not be familiar with the POFA Sch 4. Now is the time to push it all over like a house of cards and ask the Judge to recompense you for the 'vexatious' claim, which was wholly unreasonable from start to finish.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Link posted is dead?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jun 17, 12:27 AM
    • 49,929 Posts
    • 63,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    She changed it/shortened it; you can click on LoadsofChildren123's username to find her new one.
    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.

    • teccom
    • By teccom 9th Jun 17, 10:34 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    teccom
    Okay so judge struck out claim but issued me Court costs and minor expenses.
    But insinuated although as letter of driver identity was not received by solicitors she was dubious to the assertion it was ever sent by me, but awarded me a win (strike out) on one hand, pushed costs on me on the other due to me not mentioning the letter in my initial defence, basically the letter was banded as a "trick", although one that awarded me a strike out on "parking charges".

    My argument was that can be no "A" without a "B" and if PoFa states in schedule 4, section 5 (b) before "proceedings" and I informed them of driver as per Section 5 (b), prior to this then why was I being punished with "proceedings" costs, which the Judge wasn't too interested in!

    TBH honest Judge was going to entirely kick me out, entire "loss" until I gave a copy of PoFa with highlighted sections, and then the Judge accepted letter was deemed as sent if stated as so, but I was confused as to how (out of had) (insinuated)) the fact that it hadn't been! Hence why costs had been awarded (to Claimant!

    I stated to the Judge "another" upcoming MCOL claim by the Claimant had been brought and I was happy to return to fight it and I stated to the Claimant that Gladstones had ignored my letter of whom the driver was, to which the Claimant was sure they would not do such a thing, however he later personally emailed to me that GS acknowledged to the Claimant they did get a letter some "7", yes "7" days after by sending date and therefore it did not count!!!

    Appeal or comments????
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Jun 17, 10:40 PM
    • 14,484 Posts
    • 22,769 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Maybe I'm tired - but I don't understand much of this. Did you win or lose?
    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.
    • teccom
    • By teccom 9th Jun 17, 11:00 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    teccom
    issued "billed me" Court costs, kind of said you are right and although you complied with PoFa I am not sure you did so therefore I am making you pay both Court costs and GS costs!!!
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Jun 17, 11:08 PM
    • 7,287 Posts
    • 7,437 Thanks
    pappa golf
    how much are gladrags trying to charge?
    • teccom
    • By teccom 9th Jun 17, 11:12 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    teccom
    Judge allowed £50 GS
    Plus initial MCOL
    Plus 55 court trial fee
    Plus minor trivial meilage to claimant
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 9th Jun 17, 11:14 PM
    • 7,287 Posts
    • 7,437 Thanks
    pappa golf
    ah well at least it will have cost the scammer a lot more in gradrags payment

    the scammers will have had to pay the court fees , so no profit there , and as above it will have cost them more than £50 to bring the charge (time and gladrags fees)

    so I say they got a bloody nose
    Last edited by pappa golf; 09-06-2017 at 11:17 PM.
    • teccom
    • By teccom 9th Jun 17, 11:20 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    teccom
    I consider that the costs are not covered in time lost so a result.

    But strange, as it basically says "you are correct the MCOL case brought against you failed to comply with POFA, BUT you are liable for costs as they still brought MCOL case" eh?????.

    Big issue is second case is to be dropped against me, this presents my chance to present that they didn't follow PoFa as they simply wont press with trial fee, this in my opinion would demonstrate the previous cases strength.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jun 17, 11:24 PM
    • 49,929 Posts
    • 63,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    What? You won but were told to pay Gladstones costs?! How does that work?

    Can you explain a bit more exactly how this went.

    And which Court and Judge? This is madness.

    Sounds like you felt you were about to lose, then at the last minute, the Judge decided POFA meant you couldn't actually lose, but it seemed the Judge didn't believe you sent a letter. But that letter was, as FACT, 'deemed delivered' in law?
    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.

    • teccom
    • By teccom 9th Jun 17, 11:35 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    teccom
    What? You won but were told to pay Gladstones costs?! How does that work?

    Can you explain a bit more exactly how this went.

    And which Court and Judge? This is madness.

    Sounds like you felt you were about to lose, then at the last minute, the Judge decided POFA meant you couldn't actually lose, but it seemed the Judge didn't believe you sent a letter. But that letter was, as FACT, 'deemed delivered' in law?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Correct Judge sided for ages with Claimant on signage, which had no relevance, as no RK liability therefore no contract as far as I could see, then Judge almost went on to say rule against me FOR NOT nominating driver earlier, I explained PoFa does not require/force me to provide the drivers name, and that in fact any liability to keeper is subject to Sec4, of which Sec5 overrules, I had to provide a copy and Judge agreed, but said as my initial defence made no note of the letter of which the Judge waved around (insinuating its sending full stop", but then accepting in law a first class letter is deemed to be sent after XYZ days of which I pointed out the very PoFa notes the Judge basically agreed, struck out any tickets/fines but done me for costs and Claimants mileage!!!
    • teccom
    • By teccom 9th Jun 17, 11:36 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    teccom
    Can i mention court/judge as Claimant was giving it large on forum use AS was the Judge!!!!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Jun 17, 11:40 PM
    • 49,929 Posts
    • 63,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, you can.

    Please tell us EXACTLY what the Claimant and Judge said about forum use? Word for word, as you can recall?
    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.

    • teccom
    • By teccom 9th Jun 17, 11:47 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    teccom
    Yes, you can.

    Please tell us EXACTLY what the Claimant and Judge said about forum use? Word for word, as you can recall?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Dartford Court
    District Judge Smith

    Basically my defence was ill advised and likely a cut and paste and the fact that I had sent a letter stating requirements of PoFa and the RK points on LBC, BUT then failed to mention it on my initial defence, even though on PoFa there should be no case to answer as the ACT was not complied upon she effectively said she casted doubt on if the letter was ever sent, but did not address any other evidence from me after seemingly siding on loads of "signs" evidence!

    I stated I was not sure of the relevance of the PoFa act regards to RK until I did my homework.

    One other thing Claimant expected before entering the case to be immediately thrown out due to GS failing to follow disclosure rules, but instead we got in there and Judge immediately said your late/ their late hey ho, not going down that road, neither of us said a word but Claimant agreed !
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 10th Jun 17, 7:56 AM
    • 1,471 Posts
    • 2,744 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Basically my defence was ill advised
    That would appear to be the issue and why costs were given against you. Some judges take the view that the parties should do everything to stop it getting to court. And others take exception to the Defence and Witness Statement being different.

    as Claimant was giving it large on forum use
    Also was there a legal rep from Pace or was it Mr C (ex-Met detective) himself. Sounds like it was as he doesn't like being challenged.

    Did I mention my name?
    You don't have to to be identified.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 10-06-2017 at 8:02 AM.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
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

5,043Posts Today

5,272Users online

Martin's Twitter