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
    • LucyBea
    • By LucyBea 5th Jun 17, 10:54 PM
    • 37Posts
    • 35Thanks
    LucyBea
    Part 18 Gladstones/Millennium Swansea
    • #1
    • 5th Jun 17, 10:54 PM
    Part 18 Gladstones/Millennium Swansea 5th Jun 17 at 10:54 PM
    Hi,
    I would appreciate any feedback on my part 18 request to Gladstones who are acting on behalf of Millennium in Swansea.

    I’ll post it in my second post, first the facts:

    The driver of my vehicle (2 people are insured on it but others drive it using their own insurance) was parked in a petrol garage forecourt in Swansea for about 13 minutes (or so?), unaware of the poor and hidden signage from Millennium. This was back in July 2015 when Millennium were part of BPA. The signs (found after the PCN was given) allow parking for 10 minutes without a permit, a windscreen ticket was given after 11 minutes for “no permit displayed” for £100. (In retrospect the driver thinks they saw the ticket giver grinning at them as they returned to the vehicle.) There are also very large signs at this location simply saying “no parking” (which the driver also did not see, although they should have!)

    The driver unfortunately did not appeal and POPLA was not offered. Then a “notice to owner” was sent to me as keeper of the vehicle 3 months later for £150. I wrote to them pointing out that they had not complied with POFA and had no cause against me as keeper.

    Debt recovery letters arrived & ignored, varying amounts.

    LBC from Gladstones arrived Sept 2016. I entered into email correspondence with them, first pointing out the lack of POFA, then asking for many points to be clarified to align with practice direction (basis of claim and why I am liable, what was the action was based on – contractual charge, breach of contract, trespass, how the amount of money has been calculated and increased, and I proposed ADR)

    Nothing from Gladstones until April when they sent 3 photos of my vehicle’s windscreen (no signage in the pictures because there is none visible from where the car is parked) and an email with lines like “Further evidence will be provided in our Client's witness statement should the matter proceed to court” and “The parking charge was £100 on issue. As you did not pay the charge within the 28 days allowed you are in breach of contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to the parking charge incurred. As you didn’t pay the charge the matter was passed to us and the debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my client’s staff have spent time and material facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other elements of their business. My client believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of your breach and as such claims them as a damage. The costs are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses. Alternatively, my client does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).”

    They also say “As our client is not a member of the British Parking Association an appeal to POPLA is not possible. You had the opportunity to appeal, yet didn’t in the requisite time frame. In any event, had you appealed on the same grounds as you now do, it would have been refused. And, irrespective of whether any appeal was made or not, it would not impact on the lawfulness of the parking charge.”

    I replied in less than 7 days requesting the same details as before (but not actually detailing them, referring to the correspondence below). They replied saying their LBC was compliant with practice direction. I replied politely in less than 7 days detailing the information I required.

    NEXT THING – COURT PAPERS.

    “The driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of parking on the land at… The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. The claimant claims £125 for parking charges/ damages and indemnity costs if applicable….”
Page 3
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 13th Jun 17, 10:37 AM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,745 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    LIABILITY PURSUANT TO AN ALLEGED CONTRACT

    16.
    The Defendant denies It is denied that the driver entered into a contract with the Claimant and/or MPS (, Millennium Door and Event LTD, or with Millennium Parking Services, whose name appears on the inconspicuous signage at the site).

    17.
    Any contract can only have been created where there is an offer, acceptance and consideration.


    18. In the case of parking on private land, where the offeror is not present, such offer can only have been made in writing, on signage which it follows must be conspicuously displayed and which must contain legible wording capable of making an offer. In breach of Practice Direction 16 paragraph 7.3 the Claimant has not produced a copy of the signage upon which (the Defendant assumes) it relies as having made a contractual offer

    19. The Defendant denies that any offer was made because the signage was not properly or conspicuously displayed, and its wording was incapable of making any offer because it not clear and unambiguous and was forbidding.


    19.1 A driver cannot accept a contract which is being offered unless he knows, or ought to have known, its terms. It is not the driver’s The responsibility to look for signage which might offer contractual terms. It is does not lie with the driver to look for it, but for the Claimant’s responsibility to ensure that such signage/contractual terms were was so obvious enough forthat any reasonable driver to would have seen it/them, to have understood from the wording that an offer was being made, to havebeen able to have read and to have understood understand the terms being offered. , and; A driver cannot accept consent to and then breach an unknown a contract that he does not know, and cannot reasonably know, has been offered.


    19.1 On the day of the alleged incident, there was no warning sign at the entrance to the land referring to terms and conditions for parking (a further mandatory requirement of the [BPA/IPC CoP]) and the signage on the land was obscured by overgrown and unkempt foliage which would have made it impossible for the driver to have noticed it and read it.


    19.2. The wording on the obscured signage was not Terms offered must be clear and unambiguous. The signage displayed was in fact too small for
    a the driver to even notice, and it was cluttered and contained wording in small font which was illegible
    18.2.
    On the day of the alleged incident the signage was obscured by overgrown and unkempt foliage


    20. Alternatively, if the signage was capable of making does make an offer:-
    20.1 the only offer it can have made was for permit holders, or for “short stay parking” with no legible definition specifics as to how long a period this allowed. Otherwise, the wording on the signage was forbidding and not capable of making any offer, because it forbade parking on any other terms rather than offering it in return for a fee. Its aims is to deter unauthorized parking by attempting to enforce a penalty, . This is contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015
    20.2 The Claimant has produced No evidence, and the Defendant denies, has been provided that the driver breached such terms that may have been offered the terms on the inconspicuous signage: the vehicle was photographed at 11:07 and 11:16 on the day in question, is the “short stay parking" the Claimant alleges to offer for less than 9 minutes?
    (NOTE – the notice to driver says time issued 11:15, observed 11:04 to 11:14, I am merely saying there is no evidence of this…)

    20.3 The signage did not identify the Claimant, but only MPS and so no offer can have been made by the Claimant.
    18.4. There was no warning sign at the entrance to the land referring to terms and conditions, a further mandatory requirement



    18.
    It is notable that the signage (its positioning, size and wording and the absence of entrance signage) It is also in breach of the specific and mandatory requirements of the British Parking Association Code of Practice[is this the right CoP)? to which Millennium Parking Services the Claimant and/or MPS was required to adhere at the time of this alleged incident



    20.
    MPS and/or the Claimant’s Millennium Parking Service’s intention was not to offer a genuine contract to park. The wording on the (obscured) signage is forbidding: “warning private property 24 hour car park management permit holders and short stay only,” and aims to deter unauthorized parking by attempting to enforce a penalty. This is contrary to the Consumer Rights Act of 2015


    21. It follows that if an offer was not made, either because the signage made no offer or because any offer was not adequately communicated to the driver, then the driver cannot have accepted the terms offered. In the alternative, if any offer was made then the driver complied with its terms by remaining parked for only a "short" period.


    22. There is a long precedent of very similar cases dismissed due to poor signage on which the Defendant will rely

    23. The Claimant’s solicitors may attempt to use Parking Eye Limited v Beavis 2015 UKSC 67. The Defendant maintains that this case in fact supports her defence and intends to rely on use it:
    23.1. This case was not based on breach of contract, and In Beavis the Defendant accepted that there was a contract formed by the clear and prominently displayed signage.
    23.2. The Claimant had complied with the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association; this case it was held that strict compliance with the code of practice is expected of a Claimant seeking to enforce a parking charge

    23.3 The relevant land was a retail park in which there was a genuine interest in preventing overstays and ensuring a turnover of customers.



    24. The parking charges sought are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but an extravagant penalty, and therefore unenforceable. In the Beavis case, the Supreme Court was only prepared to accept a charge of £85 sufficient to act as a disincentive. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable (ParkingEye v Somerfield). The charge of £125 to the Defendant is clearly extravagant and disproportionate to the Claimant’s interest and in fact comprises non-contractual elements I've moved this para



    [s]24. The Claimant has produced No evidence has been provided that the driver breached such terms that may have been offered the terms on the inconspicuous signage: the vehicle was photographed at 11:07 and 11:16 on the day in question, is the “short stay parking" the Claimant alleges to offer for less than 9 minutes?
    (NOTE – the notice to driver says time issued 11:15, observed 11:04 to 11:14, I am merely saying there is no evidence of this…) I've moved this above[s]

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 13th Jun 17, 10:40 AM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,745 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Your remaining parts: BPA CoP breaches and CPR breaches:
    you can say simply that compliance with the CoP is mandatory and a condition of membership and compliance was also found to be paramount in the Beavis case in disengaging the penalty rule, and that there are multiple breaches of the CoP by the Claimant and/or MPS. Then for the hearing produce a schedule like mine, which I cribbed from Lamilad.


    Again, in respect of CPR breaches just put in a sentence to say that the Claimant has largely ignored its obligation to comply with the CPR, an obligation which applies to all litigants who come before the court, and that the Defendant asks the court to consider the claim in light of such conduct.
    • LucyBea
    • By LucyBea 13th Jun 17, 4:50 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    LucyBea
    Wow LoadsofChildren I cannot believe how much work you put into that.
    Thank you so very much!
    Millennium made a huge mistake when they crossed you!

    I filed a short while ago, so after all that work (from LOC too) I guess I AM fighting back.

    However.... I emailed after 4pm. Little did I know, the CC treats any correspondence sent after 4pm as being sent the day after. Tomorrow will be 34 days after the date on the papers

    Am I scr*wed? (I notice the response pack says if you do not file a defence within 28 days of the date of service of the claim form, judgment "may" be entered against you...)

    I know how many times on here regulars say not to leave everything until the last minute
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 13th Jun 17, 5:07 PM
    • 1,435 Posts
    • 2,675 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Am I scr*wed?
    Call them tomorrow FIRST THING to make sure it has been added to the case and the case is marked as defended.

    People have been caught by leaving it till later in the day and the other side applied for judgement. The other side has to ask as it is not granted automatically - so get that call in.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • LucyBea
    • By LucyBea 13th Jun 17, 5:33 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    LucyBea
    Thank you IamEmanresu I will do that ... and I would not have even thought of that if you had not said. Super rookie :-(
    • Redx
    • By Redx 13th Jun 17, 5:48 PM
    • 15,211 Posts
    • 19,172 Thanks
    Redx
    Wow LoadsofChildren I cannot believe how much work you put into that.
    Thank you so very much!
    Millennium made a huge mistake when they crossed you!
    Originally posted by LucyBea
    I agree , lol

    in fact I think we ALL agree !!!

    3 cheers for the help LOC has put in here already, especially in your case alone

    it reminds me of LAMILAD taking VCS/EXCEL and JAKE to the cleaners , people fighting back against these chancers and bullies is why all regulars here are here , day in , day out

    good luck
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • LucyBea
    • By LucyBea 13th Jun 17, 11:37 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    LucyBea
    3 cheers for the help LOC has put in here already, especially in your case alone
    Hip hip hooray!

    And I really am in awe of you regulars
    Thank you so much for the help so far...
    • LucyBea
    • By LucyBea 14th Jun 17, 11:45 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    LucyBea
    Just in case anyone was on tenterhooks, my case is marked as defended, phew
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Jun 17, 9:28 PM
    • 49,037 Posts
    • 62,496 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A great example of forum aided defence; well worth newbies following this thread.
    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.

    • LucyBea
    • By LucyBea 1st Jul 17, 11:15 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    LucyBea
    I received Gladstones directions questionnaire copy just over a week ago but I still haven't received my own - is this delay normal?

    Thank you :-)
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 1st Jul 17, 2:07 PM
    • 1,435 Posts
    • 2,675 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    but I still haven't received my own - is this delay normal?
    Call the court on Monday to ask if they have sent you a blank DQ. You can if you wish download one from the internet and fill it out as follows:

    A1 = Say NO to mediation. Mediation is run by a commercial company on behalf of the courts and their success is measured by how many cases are kept out of court. They are not interested in the merits of the case, only whether you will pay or not. So say No.

    B = fill in all the details, your name, your address, etc. This is the address that all the paperwork will be sent to. If you are moving home within 6 months make sure you have mail redirection in place. You will get a default CCJ if the paperwork doesn't get to you as the Courts see it as your responsibility to give a correct address.

    C1 = YES to small claims track

    D1 = name of your local County Court – unless you are a Limited company, the case files will be transferred there. They will ask for theirs but protocol dictates it is your court.

    D2 = NO to expert evidence

    D3 = 1 witness (or more if you are going to get another person to provide a statement)

    D4 = Put down the dates of any pre-booked holidays, NO to interpreter (unless you need one)

    You send a copy to the courts and another copy to the Claimant company. Keep a copy for yourself. There is a long delay (20+ weeks) between this form and an actual day in court.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.
    • LucyBea
    • By LucyBea 1st Jul 17, 9:41 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    LucyBea
    Thank you IamEmanresu!

    Unsurprisingly I have had no response for Gladstones to my Part 18 request (emailed about 3 weeks ago - but they managed to fill out and send the DQ!! Grrr ) so I was planning on sending another in the post.
    Does anyone have any views on that? It wouldn't take me long, if they ignore it it builds the case they are completely unreasonable, if they answer it at least I have some more information.

    Also I did want to send a letter to India Beavan of Millennium as per a suggestion on parking prankster: she backed out of a case with no keeper liability, so I was going to point out the same issue in my case.
    (parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/india-beavan-agrees-to-drop-millenium.html)

    Is it okay to contact the Claimant directly though? Or does that "look bad"?

    Thank you for any advice!
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 1st Jul 17, 11:35 PM
    • 7,240 Posts
    • 7,391 Thanks
    pappa golf
    you are attempting to resolve this before court
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jul 17, 11:42 PM
    • 49,037 Posts
    • 62,496 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You can certainly contact the Claimant. Go for it!

    But I wouldn't give Gladstones a chance to rectify their oversight in not responding to your Part 18 request. Let them stew then use that against them in your WS later on.
    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.

    • LucyBea
    • By LucyBea 3rd Jul 17, 10:13 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    LucyBea
    Update for anyone following this thread & learning about Gladstones' tactics:

    I phoned court, they told me the Claimant was "jumping the gun" and that they hadn't even heard from them yet and wouldn't send me the DQ until they had heard they were proceeding with the Claim. So the DQ they sent me is clearly just another photocopied mass mailing!!

    I received this 10 days ago, and the first sentence of the letter they enclosed "We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client's intention to proceed with the claim" is therefore completely untrue!

    I know regulars will not be surprised at all but I really do find it amazing that a firm of Solicitors can get away with this dishonesty.

    Anyway, I will be waiting - because if they don't meet the 28 day deadline the case will be stayed and they will have to pay a fee to open it again.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 3rd Jul 17, 10:19 AM
    • 14,057 Posts
    • 22,088 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Just a whisper of caution - some courts are experiencing a serious backlog in dealing with administration, so don't fall asleep on this. The DQ may be sitting in a pile of unopened post.
    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 3rd Jul 17, 10:32 AM
    • 5,675 Posts
    • 7,329 Thanks
    beamerguy
    "I know regulars will not be surprised at all but I really do find it amazing that a firm of Solicitors can get away with this dishonesty"

    You are talking about real solicitors ?
    Gladstones are simply an incompetent lot who run the IPC/IAS scam

    Normal solicitors will be ashamed that Gladstones give the
    legal profession a bad name
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 3rd Jul 17, 11:25 AM
    • 6,853 Posts
    • 5,878 Thanks
    The Deep
    Update for anyone following this thread & learning about Gladstones' tactics:

    I phoned court, they told me the Claimant was "jumping the gun" and that they hadn't even heard from them yet and wouldn't send me the DQ until they had heard they were proceeding with the Claim.

    I know regulars will not be surprised at all but I really do find it amazing that a firm of Solicitors can get away with this dishonesty.
    .
    Originally posted by LucyBea


    Send the court a record of this conversation to create a paper trail which you might be able to use to your advantage at a later date.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • LucyBea
    • By LucyBea 5th Jul 17, 4:51 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    LucyBea
    So I'm a wee bit confused...

    Umkomaas, when you say the DQ could be in an unopened pile of post, I thought the Court only sent them out once the Claimant decided to proceed with the Claim? According to the Court, they have not yet said they are proceeding, so I was working under the assumption that Gladstones/Millennium will not have even received their DQ?

    The one they sent me actually has the correct Claim number on it, as if it came from the Court. Perhaps I am chasing shadows again but it kind of looks to me like Gladstones are faking court documents?

    Anyway I am sending copies of it to Court with a letter, as suggested by The Deep.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 10th Jul 17, 2:07 PM
    • 1,012 Posts
    • 1,745 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I think Umkomaas means their notification to the court that they wish to proceed.


    After that's processed the court sends out a DQ to each party with an order saying when it must be returned (and making a preliminary allocation to the small claims track).


    Rule 18 doesn't actually apply to small claims. Rule 27.2(3) says that "The court of its own initiative may order a party to provide further information if it considers it appropriate to do so".


    When you return the DQ, send in a covering letter saying this:


    Dear Sirs


    [Claim number]


    I enclose my completed Directions Questionnaire. When the District Judge considers what directions are appropriate in this case I would ask that s/he considers the following:


    1. I request that the court makes an order under Rule 27.2(3) for the Claimant to provide the information requested by me on [date] (copy [letter/request] attached). The information was requested because the Claimant's Particulars of Claim give scant information about the Claim or how the Claimant will prove it, and it did not comply with its obligations in 6(a)/(c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. This leaves me in the difficult position of having had to file a Defence when I have very little understanding of the Claim I must meet and how the Claimant will evidence it. The information requested is all designed to make up for the failure to provide such information at the pre-action phase of these proceedings and to particularise the claim adequately (as required by Rule 16.4). I ask for a consequential order that I be permitted to amend my Defence, if I wish to do so, once this information has been provided.


    2. Alternatively, the court may consider that the Claim should be struck out now pursuant to Rule 3.4, since the Particulars disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or are an abuse of process (they are so brief as to be incoherent), and/or because of the Claimant's refusal to comply with paragraphs 6(a) and (c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.


    3. If the court is not minded to make the order under 2 above, I also request an order for sequential service of evidence, rather than exchange (for the same reasons).


    Yours faithfully etc.


    2. above may not apply to you if their particulars do include at least some details. The ones in my case were so brief as to be incoherent - basically just a series of letters and numbers (which were the car reg, the pcn number and the date, but not described as such) followed by some figures of what was claimed without any explanation how they'd been calculated - no reference eg to the vehicle being parked in x location on x date in breach of contract. I'd expect yours to be the same as it's same solicitors and same PPC.


    You can also say in this letter that you have received a Form N159 from Gladstones [this is the request for the whole thing to be dealt with on paper, with no hearing] but you do not agree that the direction should be given because you wish to defend the claim at a hearing.
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

748Posts Today

8,395Users online

Martin's Twitter