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
    • 21Posts
    • 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 2
    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 3rd Oct 17, 1:34 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    Also, I think most or all of the following can go in there too. And I should probably refer more specifically to CPM's original appeal rejection letter arguing against the points on which they have rejected the appeal. they list the following -
    1. Our records indicate that the vehicle reg ****** (as shown in the photos) was not authorised to be parked at the location, therefore vehicle in breach of terms and conditions stipulated on all signage displayed within the car park.
    2. It is the driver's responsibility when leaving their vehicle unattended to observe the area and check parking is permitted. There is clear signage placed throughout the parking area stating that the land is private property and restrictions apply.
    3. The photographic evidence of your vehicle show that you are within clear view of one of the many warning signs throughout the development; I have circled in yellow above to alleviate any doubt (how thoughtful of them!!). all signage states terms and conditions of parking within the restricted area. Upon reading the signage you have contractually agreed to pay a parking charge fee as restrictions were breached. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure parking is permitted prior to leaving the vehicle unattended in the restricted area.


    Actually, having typed that our I think I probably have it all covered in my draft above?


    The extra to go in as follows though... ignore para numbers, straight cut and paste from another thread into here.


    The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    10.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    10.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    10.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    10.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
    12. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).
    13. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.
    14. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).
    15. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.
    16. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.
    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 17, 1:48 PM
    • 50,705 Posts
    • 64,109 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I like that just three points I saw:

    At the start, state that:


    It is not admitted that the Defendant is liable for this charge, since they were the hirer/lessee of the vehicle and the defence will evidence that there can be no hirer liability in law, outwith the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraphs 13/14 ('the POFA').


    And here, add a bit more:

    5. The PCN states in paragraph three that the defendant has been named as the driver following a transfer of liability. This is incorrect and in fact, impossible for the registered keeper (company) of the vehicle to have assumed, if they even did. It seems more likely to the Defendant that this is a presumption made only by the Claimant (and, given the absence of evidence, not a lawful one). The registered keeper company can never name a hirer/lessee as 'the driver', only as the hirer of the vehicle, which is what they did in order to transfer liability. A parking company must then issue a Notice to Hirer in order to find the named party liable in law. In this case...continue as you had the wording...

    and here, this template conflates two different meanings of the word 'contract' because the first line is talking about the requirement to show the contract between driver and trader - i.e. the signs. Not the landowner authority which is a different sort of contract entirely, so separate the two points:


    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.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 03-10-2017 at 1:51 PM.
    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 3rd Oct 17, 2:58 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheSkiingGolfer
    Super :-)
    Good to go once those bits added do you think?

    Ben
    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 3rd Oct 17, 4:38 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    Hi Coupon


    Shall I add the text in my post #21? Or are you saying that it is ok without that? Also, forgive me, i'm struggling to understand what I have to separate in your point about the different types of contract? Changed the other bits though, re-draft below...


    DEFENCE STATEMENT
    It is not admitted that the Defendant is liable for this charge, since they were the hirer/lessee of the vehicle and the defence will evidence that there can be no hirer liability in law with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraphs 13/14 ('the POFA').

    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. This is incorrect and in fact, impossible for the registered keeper (company) of the vehicle to have assumed, if they even did. It seems more likely to the Defendant that this is a presumption made only by the Claimant (and, given the absence of evidence, not a lawful one). The registered keeper company can never name a hirer/lessee as 'the driver', only as the hirer of the vehicle, which is what they did in order to transfer liability. A parking company must then issue a Notice to Hirer in order to find the named party liable in law. 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.
    • BennyHill83
    • By BennyHill83 3rd Oct 17, 4:40 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    BennyHill83
    I like that just three points I saw:

    At the start, state that:


    It is not admitted that the Defendant is liable for this charge, since they were the hirer/lessee of the vehicle and the defence will evidence that there can be no hirer liability in law, outwith the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraphs 13/14 ('the POFA').


    And here, add a bit more:




    and here, this template conflates two different meanings of the word 'contract' because the first line is talking about the requirement to show the contract between driver and trader - i.e. the signs. Not the landowner authority which is a different sort of contract entirely, so separate the two points:
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Ah I think I see what you mean now...literally start a new line to separate the points? I don't need to amend or remove anything?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 17, 9:18 PM
    • 50,705 Posts
    • 64,109 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, it's a new numbered point because the first bit was talking about the requirement to show the contract that allegedly bound the driver (i.e. the signage terms).

    The rest that followed on about a 'contract' with the landowner, is not talking about signs, at all.

    Re this, yes add the extra words as they are well-written by Johnersh:
    The extra to go in as follows though... ignore para numbers, straight cut and paste from another thread into here.
    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 3rd Oct 17, 10:57 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    TheSkiingGolfer
    And are we good to send then Coupon?

    For some reason posting from my mobile I'm TheSkiingGolfer but it's still me Benny �� must have created a new profile at some stage and not realised.

    Ben
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Oct 17, 12:59 AM
    • 50,705 Posts
    • 64,109 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hahaha, yes, good to submit that defence by email to the ccbcaq email, found easily.
    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.

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

2,496Posts Today

6,860Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin