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
    • 29Posts
    • 23Thanks
    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
    • 858 Posts
    • 1,455 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
    • 858 Posts
    • 1,455 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
    • 29 Posts
    • 23 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
    • 1,292 Posts
    • 2,376 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
    • 29 Posts
    • 23 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
    • 14,418 Posts
    • 17,997 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
    • 29 Posts
    • 23 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
    • 29 Posts
    • 23 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
    • 46,894 Posts
    • 60,221 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A great example of forum aided defence; well worth newbies following this thread.
    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.

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

769Posts Today

6,477Users online

Martin's Twitter