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
    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 27th Jun 17, 11:25 AM
    • 22Posts
    • 5Thanks
    BennyHill83
    LBC received from Gladstones for UKCPM PPC
    • #1
    • 27th Jun 17, 11:25 AM
    LBC received from Gladstones for UKCPM PPC 27th Jun 17 at 11:25 AM
    Hello all


    As instructed in the newbies thread here is my new thread for my case. After initial appeal, which of course lost, and numerous debt collector letters I now have a second letter from Gladstone's which is an LBC.


    I have this template below from Gan on Pepipoo which I am prepared to send. I can provide any more detail you wonderful folks need in order to advise me. Worthy of note in the first instance that this was a postal PPC, no windscreen ticket, on a vehicle that I was hiring from Volkswagen for the weekend.


    Thanks
    Ben


    Dear Sir

    Ref : ****

    I have received your Letter Before Claim dated 1st September 2016.

    I deny any debt to Park Direct UK Ltd

    The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me as keeper.

    You also cannot presume that I possess all the documents referred to in your letter.
    Please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle.

    When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass
    Please confirm that your client's contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court.
    I also require an explanation for the additional £50 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.

    When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response
    It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.

    I look forward to your response

    Yours Faithfully
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Jun 17, 11:58 PM
    • 51,560 Posts
    • 65,177 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 27th Jun 17, 11:58 PM
    • #2
    • 27th Jun 17, 11:58 PM
    That's fine, except you said in the title it is UKPCM and yet your first line talks about another company:

    I deny any debt to Park Direct UK Ltd
    You could also add, in some detail, that you were a hirer of the car and the parking operator failed to serve a Notice to Hirer with the requisite enclosures as set out in para 13/14 of Schedule 4 of the POFA, so there can be no hirer liability and these continued demands of a person they cannot lawfully hold liable, constitutes harassment.
    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.

    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 28th Jun 17, 2:55 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    • #3
    • 28th Jun 17, 2:55 PM
    • #3
    • 28th Jun 17, 2:55 PM
    Thanks Coupon


    That was just a straight cut and paste from the other website I haven't changed the specifics yet and I will now include what you advise there.


    How likely following this LBC is it that UKCPM will proceed to court?


    Benny
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Jun 17, 2:56 PM
    • 51,560 Posts
    • 65,177 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 28th Jun 17, 2:56 PM
    • #4
    • 28th Jun 17, 2:56 PM
    How likely following this LBC is it that UKCPM will proceed to court?
    I would say 'probably likely'. But we WIN.
    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.

    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 8th Sep 17, 4:39 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    • #5
    • 8th Sep 17, 4:39 PM
    Claim form received
    • #5
    • 8th Sep 17, 4:39 PM
    I would say 'probably likely'. But we WIN.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad


    Let's change 'probably likely' to 'certain' now. Just arrived back from a winderful trip to Moldova this week to a Claim Form.


    I await the usual excellent guidance...


    Ben
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 8th Sep 17, 4:48 PM
    • 33,291 Posts
    • 17,220 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #6
    • 8th Sep 17, 4:48 PM
    • #6
    • 8th Sep 17, 4:48 PM
    Excellent guidance for dealing with court claim is in the newbies FAQ thread
    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 8th Sep 17, 4:50 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    • #7
    • 8th Sep 17, 4:50 PM
    • #7
    • 8th Sep 17, 4:50 PM
    Excellent guidance for dealing with court claim is in the newbies FAQ thread
    Originally posted by Quentin

    Oops, sorry Quentin...on my way there now in that case.


    Ben
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 17, 1:16 AM
    • 51,560 Posts
    • 65,177 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 9th Sep 17, 1:16 AM
    • #8
    • 9th Sep 17, 1:16 AM
    Tell us when the AOS is done online on MCOL, as illustrated in the NEWBIES thread, then show us the draft defence once you have copied and adapted those you read that are similar enough.
    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.

    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 28th Sep 17, 11:49 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    • #9
    • 28th Sep 17, 11:49 PM
    Date miscalculation?
    • #9
    • 28th Sep 17, 11:49 PM
    Just having a major panic that i've cocked up on dates...as follows...hope i'm wrong.


    Issue date on the Claim Form is 04/09/17...add 5 for service, easy. 09/09/17...add 14 to submit AOS by...23/09/17...however i did AOS on the MCOL on 16/09/17 so adding 14 to that brings me to today!!...i'm hoping that the 14 days is still added on from 23/09/17 which gives me until 07/10/17 and not added on at the date i actually did the AOS?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Sep 17, 11:57 PM
    • 51,560 Posts
    • 65,177 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You get a max 33 days from 04/09/17, so calm down!
    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.

    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 29th Sep 17, 12:22 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    Feeling more calm already. Just reading through some of the defences to see what is relevant and will post a first draft on new thread ASAP.


    Insufficient signage and failure to follow POFA i believe are my two defences, however i cannot be certain that they failed to follow POFA...they clearly got my name from the hire company who have named me as 'the driver'
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 29th Sep 17, 12:50 AM
    • 4,517 Posts
    • 2,848 Thanks
    KeithP
    ...will post a first draft on new thread ASAP.
    Originally posted by BennyHill83
    No, no, no.

    Not on a new thread please.

    Please continue the saga on this existing thread.

    You will find a lot of knowledgable people will not be bothered to search to find the history of your case.

    Help them to help you.
    .
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Sep 17, 8:19 AM
    • 869 Posts
    • 983 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    The hire company cannot possibly have named you as the driver, as they have no such informaiton in their possession. They cannot do such a nomination. So of course POFA failure is included.
    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 29th Sep 17, 4:45 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    No, no, no.

    Not on a new thread please.

    Please continue the saga on this existing thread.

    You will find a lot of knowledgable people will not be bothered to search to find the history of your case.

    Help them to help you.
    Originally posted by KeithP


    Understood, continuation here it is
    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 1st Oct 17, 5:29 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    first draft defence
    Afternoon folks


    Below my defence. I look forward to you all tearing it apart such that the final draft is the real deal! Not sure what's happened to the formatting at the bottom there but it looks fine in my Word Doc.


    As I said in one of the paragraphs I have been this week and taken a video of vehicle driving in and a number of photographs of their signs. How do I properly exhibit these as part of the defence?

    As ever my grateful thanks, Ben



    In The County Court


    Claim No. ********


    Between


    UK Car Park Management LTD (Claimant) V *******(Defendant)


    DEFENCE STATEMENT




    • It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that the alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all under this tort, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none).
    • The PCN states in paragraph three that the defendant has been named as the driver following a transfer of liability. The registered keeper of the vehicle does not have the authority to name the defendant as the driver, only as the hirer of the vehicle. In this case the claimant has failed to exercise the correct process in order to pursue me as hirer as laid out in POFA 2014, Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 section (2) subsection (a) as follows “the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;” No such documents were received by the defendant despite a request to the claimant for any such documents in the defendant’s response to their Letter Before Claim.
    • Even if the Defendant is found to be liable under the POFA 2012, that law only permits a claimant to recover no more than the sum stated on the PCN. It is submitted that any added fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.
    • The Claimant’s signs are in small print, the terms are illegible and a driver would could not reasonably be expected to read and understand the terms of parking on entering the car park. Photographs taken by the defendant and a video of a vehicle entering the car park demonstrate the insufficient signage.

    The claimant’s photographs on the PCN do not prove that the vehicle was in breach of the terms of parking, which in any event were not adequately stated as per paragraph No contract was formed with the driver to pay £10, £20, £100 or any sum at all, since the signs have no legible ‘charge’ which could be visible on arrival. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver who was not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be pursued. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen then there can be no contract (the Defendant relies upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000 in this regard).

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 1st Oct 17, 5:47 PM
    • 4,517 Posts
    • 2,848 Thanks
    KeithP
    As an aside Benny, you might like to read this thread:

    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 12:43 AM
    • 51,560 Posts
    • 65,177 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    As I said in one of the paragraphs I have been this week and taken a video of vehicle driving in and a number of photographs of their signs. How do I properly exhibit these as part of the defence?
    Not at this stage.

    Evidence is filed with the local court (and Claimant's solicitor) weeks before the hearing, with your Witness Statement, as explained in the NEWBIES thread post #2 (especially read the 'what happens when' links).

    Your defence looks a bit sparse, so far, and misses out all the usual stuff used in Gladstones claims, about their robo-claims being insufficient in terms of facts and particulars of claim. Have a look at other people's Gladstones defences this week, we've seen a few (search the forum for 'Gladstones money owed £5000').

    Also, I see nothing to explain what actually happened - is this a lack of permit, not enough pay and display tariff paid, a residential car park where the driver was an authorised tenant, or what?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 02-10-2017 at 12:49 AM.
    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.

    • TheSkiingGolfer
    • By TheSkiingGolfer 2nd Oct 17, 9:36 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheSkiingGolfer
    Morning Coupon

    Lack of permit is the particulars here. The photographs on the PCN are one of the rear of the vehicle and and of the side. These do not prove that there was no permit, is this a point of defence?

    I'll get on the generic Gladstone's stuff this morning.

    Thanks
    Ben
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 10:06 AM
    • 51,560 Posts
    • 65,177 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'll get on the generic Gladstone's stuff this morning.
    You need to zone in on the fact they haven't met the practice direction nor set out specific particulars of claim. This is done to death in other Gladstones defences found in 5 seconds flat using the search terms I gave you above.

    Lack of permit is the particulars here. The photographs on the PCN are one of the rear of the vehicle and and of the side. These do not prove that there was no permit, is this a point of defence?
    Definitely, think of everything and cover it now, as you need to hang your hat on these points later in your WS and evidence, ready for a hearing.

    I'm sure there's a permit case example defence in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

    And if this is a residents car park you may have missed a trick hugely. ''Own space'' defences are much stronger in terms of case law (Johnersh's example in the NEWBIES thread post #2 springs to mind). A resident has rights of way and possibly a right to park already, as might their visitors.
    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.

    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 3rd Oct 17, 1:12 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    You need to zone in on the fact they haven't met the practice direction nor set out specific particulars of claim. This is done to death in other Gladstones defences found in 5 seconds flat using the search terms I gave you above.

    Definitely, think of everything and cover it now, as you need to hang your hat on these points later in your WS and evidence, ready for a hearing.

    I'm sure there's a permit case example defence in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

    And if this is a residents car park you may have missed a trick hugely. ''Own space'' defences are much stronger in terms of case law (Johnersh's example in the NEWBIES thread post #2 springs to mind). A resident has rights of way and possibly a right to park already, as might their visitors.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Afternoon, not a resident's car park. Public House car park it is.


    So I have updated defence (copied from notepad this time) with the Gladstones stuff. 33 days after 4th September means I must submit by 7th October if my math is any good? Hopefully i'm somewhere close to having it presentable. Not sure on my paragraph numbering and sub-numbering?


    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
    “If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.” UK Car Park Management Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.
    2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is ‘roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;
    The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    2.1. Those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money owed £5000’.
    2.2. Those which are incoherent and make no sense.
    2.3. Those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant.
    2.4. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence:
    2.4.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    2.4.2. The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred.
    2.4.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    2.4.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    2.4.5. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
    2.4.5.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
    charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
    2.4.5.2. On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.
    3. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    3.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    3.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    3.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible. As no contract was formed with the driver to pay £100, or any sum at all, since the signs have no legible ‘charge’ which could be visible on arrival. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver who was not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be pursued. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen then there can be no contract (the Defendant relies upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000 in this regard).
    4. The Claimant’s signs are in small print, the terms are illegible and a driver would could not reasonably be expected to read and understand the terms of parking on entering the car park. Photographs taken by the defendant and a video of a vehicle entering the car park demonstrate the insufficient signage.
    4.1. The claimant’s photographs on the PCN do not prove that the vehicle was in breach of the terms of parking, which in any event are inadequately stated. The small print on the claimant’s signs states “Permits must be clearly displayed in windscreen at all times”. The PCN issued includes two photographs, neither of which include any view of the vehicle windscreen and are therefore wholly inappropriate to rely on in attempting to prove that the terms have been breached.
    5. The PCN states in paragraph three that the defendant has been named as the driver following a transfer of liability. The registered keeper of the vehicle does not have the authority to name the defendant as the driver, only as the hirer of the vehicle. In this case the claimant has failed to exercise the correct process in order to pursue me as hirer as laid out in POFA 2014, Schedule 4, Paragraph 14 section (2) subsection (a) as follows “the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;” No such documents were received by the defendant despite a request to the claimant for any such documents in the defendant’s response to their Letter Before Claim. Even if the Defendant is found to be liable under the POFA 2012, that law only permits a claimant to recover no more than the sum stated on the PCN. It is submitted that any added fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.
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

15Posts Today

4,362Users online

Martin's Twitter