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
    • Curly girly
    • By Curly girly 11th Jul 17, 7:56 PM
    • 23Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Curly girly
    Further letter from Gladstones Solicitors
    • #1
    • 11th Jul 17, 7:56 PM
    Further letter from Gladstones Solicitors 11th Jul 17 at 7:56 PM
    Help needed please. I received a letter before action from Gladstones with very little information on so having taken advice from the newbies thread I responded asking for more information as they couldn't assume that I had received all the relevant information that they referred to in their letter.
    They have now responded with the following:
    The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the registered keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption. You have been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver yet have failed to do so. Our client therefore concludes it more likely than not you were the driver.
    Notwithstanding the above you are also pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 (the Act) which states
    'the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle'
    The relevant notices were sent in accordance with the act and you failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings (which is required under the act (paragraph 5 (2)
    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sched 4 (para 2) states that the keeper means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle is parked which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed unless the contrary is proved to be the registered keeper.
    Correspondence was sent t your registered address. You have given no reasonable explanation as to why you wouldn't have received this. However without concession even if the post wasn't received this would not impact your liability to pay. The correspondence was sent after you became liable.
    Our client relies on the case of parkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the drivers action as prescribed therein.
    The signs on the land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which you did the charge was properly incurred.
    As the contract is between you and our client, our client does have the authority to enforce parking charges. Both VCS v HM Revenues and Customs (2013) an Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of any other contract, nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between operator and landowner of any relevance. In any event and without concession our client did have authority from the landowner to operate on the land.
    Payment remains outstanding in the sum of £160 and can be made at ?? In the event that payment isn't made in the next 14 days further legal action will be taken.
    your sincerely

    Do I respond asking for further information as suggested in other threads. I want to contest the signage as it wasn't clear and this was proven when the LA got involved and additional signage was but up at one of the entrances. The amount also needs to be challenged as it was different on other correspondence.
    Many thanks
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Jul 17, 9:13 PM
    • 5,921 Posts
    • 7,627 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:13 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:13 PM
    Help needed please. I received a letter before action from Gladstones with very little information on so having taken advice from the newbies thread I responded asking for more information as they couldn't assume that I had received all the relevant information that they referred to in their letter.
    They have now responded with the following:
    The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the registered keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption. You have been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver yet have failed to do so. Our client therefore concludes it more likely than not you were the driver.
    Notwithstanding the above you are also pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 (the Act) which states
    'the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle'
    The relevant notices were sent in accordance with the act and you failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings (which is required under the act (paragraph 5 (2)
    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sched 4 (para 2) states that the keeper means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle is parked which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed unless the contrary is proved to be the registered keeper.
    Correspondence was sent t your registered address. You have given no reasonable explanation as to why you wouldn't have received this. However without concession even if the post wasn't received this would not impact your liability to pay. The correspondence was sent after you became liable.
    Our client relies on the case of parkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the drivers action as prescribed therein.
    The signs on the land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which you did the charge was properly incurred.
    As the contract is between you and our client, our client does have the authority to enforce parking charges. Both VCS v HM Revenues and Customs (2013) an Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of any other contract, nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between operator and landowner of any relevance. In any event and without concession our client did have authority from the landowner to operate on the land.
    Payment remains outstanding in the sum of £160 and can be made at ?? In the event that payment isn't made in the next 14 days further legal action will be taken.
    your sincerely

    Do I respond asking for further information as suggested in other threads. I want to contest the signage as it wasn't clear and this was proven when the LA got involved and additional signage was but up at one of the entrances. The amount also needs to be challenged as it was different on other correspondence.
    Many thanks
    Originally posted by Curly girly
    First question ....... who do they ask you to pay ????

    Is this from T. Hawker ???

    They are talking rubbish. Get ready to write a severe letter
    to Trading Standards, we will help you with that
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Curly girly
    • By Curly girly 11th Jul 17, 9:27 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Curly girly
    • #3
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:27 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:27 PM
    They are asking me the RK to pay Gladstones solicitors at a .com address. The signature is just a squiggle and there is no name at the bottom of the letter.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 9:29 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,345 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:29 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:29 PM
    Dear Gallstones,

    I refer to your misleading template letter dated ../../17.

    The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 is just that - a criminal case, as you say - and totally irrelevant to contract law. Gallstones is well aware of this fact, having seen dozens of Judges find that as fact.

    Notwithstanding the above, your client is not entitled by any rule of law to conclude or assume that I was the driver, but you know that too. It is also within your own knowledge that your client is unlikely to have met the requirements for 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and the prescribed Notice to Keeper format and deadline, in order to hold the Registered Keeper of the vehicle liable, pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the Act).

    Even if your client had complied with the Act, the maximum sum that the statute allows to be potentially recovered from a keeper, is the sum on any compliant and properly-given Notice to Keeper. Double recovery is disallowed, and the fluctuating escalated 'added costs' in the demands you and your client have sent are extortionate and unconscionable penalties in themselves, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield, where the inflated sum of £135 - which was well above the parking charge on signage - was deemed excessive and likely to be a penalty.

    Your client would try to spout the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015, as you always do. Again, it is irrelevant to the facts of this case, and it can be fully distinguished. And once again, that is something that is within your personal knowledge but you appear to have forgotten that your first duty is to the Court.

    The signs on the land are unclear, sparse and ambiguous and the driver would not have been bound by any contract. Unlike yourselves, the signage at the location is within my local knowledge and the signs were so woeful and causing so many complaints that the Local Authority became involved, forcing entrance signs to be added which were not there at the material time. You would know that, had you carried out any due diligence and bothered to obtain any facts and evidence from your client before harassing me with your standard rubbish.

    The fact of the matter is, none of the signs have even been seen by your firm, and nothing about this case is in fact within your knowledge, but it is clear that you are intent on one of your usual predatory robo-claims. It is known that Gallstones do not come to this matter with clean hands, given the connection (that you have recently tried to artificially sever) between your firm's Directors, the IPC and the IAS, the so-called 'independent appeals service' which is nothing of the sort.

    I believe that your letters fall far short of the professional standards required by the SRA. I shall therefore be using this exchange of letters as evidence in court and shall be reporting your company for breach of the following SRA code:

    Chapter 11 O(11.1) you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity.

    In addition, as you also operate the IAS I shall be reporting a breach of the SRA Conflict of interest code:

    Chapter 3 Para O(3.4): you do not act if there is an own interest conflict or a significant risk of an own interest conflict.

    Please advise your client that any court action will be vigorously defended.

    yours faithfully,
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 11-07-2017 at 9:50 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.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 9:31 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,345 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:31 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:31 PM
    You may or may not like to change the 'Gallstones' x 3 to the right firm's name...
    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.

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Jul 17, 9:33 PM
    • 5,921 Posts
    • 7,627 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #6
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:33 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:33 PM
    They are asking me the RK to pay Gladstones solicitors at a .com address. The signature is just a squiggle and there is no name at the bottom of the letter.
    Originally posted by Curly girly
    This is important

    Could you scan and upload the letter to a free site like photobucket

    Right now you cannot post a link here so use hxxp instead of http

    We need to see it and the rubbish sent by Gladstones
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 9:36 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,345 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:36 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:36 PM
    It doesn't matter - a solicitor does not have to sign a letter with a name, they can just put 'GS' if they want. Solicitor's letters are often signed that way - perfectly normal, in conveyancing, litigation and all sorts.
    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.

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Jul 17, 9:47 PM
    • 5,921 Posts
    • 7,627 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #8
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:47 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:47 PM
    Curly girly ... coupon-mad is right
    But as this is a scam this now must be esculated.
    Gladstones have been given enough rope, so much so, it's hanging time ...... scan and upload this letter please
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Curly girly
    • By Curly girly 11th Jul 17, 9:57 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Curly girly
    • #9
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:57 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Jul 17, 9:57 PM
    I'm tempted to leave it at Gallstones!
    Wow what a response many thanks for this I'm more than happy to go with that. These people have made my life a misery for the last 9 months.
    Do I need to mention anything about the camera that took the photo of the car as it wasn't an ANPR?
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Jul 17, 10:08 PM
    • 5,921 Posts
    • 7,627 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I'm tempted to leave it at Gallstones!
    Wow what a response many thanks for this I'm more than happy to go with that. These people have made my life a misery for the last 9 months.
    Do I need to mention anything about the camera that took the photo of the car as it wasn't an ANPR?
    Originally posted by Curly girly
    Gladstones are scammers. PERIOD

    You must scan and upload this scam letter.
    Ensure you redact your personal information

    Nothing is off limits with the disgusting Gladstones
    Last edited by beamerguy; 11-07-2017 at 10:12 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Curly girly
    • By Curly girly 11th Jul 17, 10:13 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Curly girly
    I would if I knew how to do it?

    The text in my original threead is word for word.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Jul 17, 10:23 PM
    • 5,921 Posts
    • 7,627 Thanks
    beamerguy
    I would if I knew how to do it?

    The text in my original threead is word for word.
    Originally posted by Curly girly
    It is important that the letterhead of Gladstones is seen

    Where are you in the UK
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Curly girly
    • By Curly girly 11th Jul 17, 10:52 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Curly girly
    Sorry I'm a techno-phobe and have no idea how to upload the scanned letter.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Jul 17, 11:04 PM
    • 5,921 Posts
    • 7,627 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Sorry I'm a techno-phobe and have no idea how to upload the scanned letter.
    Originally posted by Curly girly
    Do you have a PC or laprop
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jul 17, 11:05 PM
    • 49,944 Posts
    • 63,345 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Do I need to mention anything about the camera that took the photo of the car as it wasn't an ANPR?
    Originally posted by Curly girly
    Maybe, without saying who was driving.

    It wasn't a predatory employee lurking behind a bush then swooping to take quick photos within 2 minutes flat then running away to later post a PCN, was it? Always worth mentioning predatory practices which are against the IPC CoP (which Gallstones Directors wrote...).
    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.

    • Curly girly
    • By Curly girly 11th Jul 17, 11:23 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Curly girly
    No from what I can gather from others it was the new owner of the restaurant on the site who was seen taking photos on his mobile phone and sending them to UK CPM Ltd. I've parked on that site for 10 years and never had a problem and it is a free car park.
    The entrance signage went up following pressure from the LA (trading standards) but then was taken back down a few weeks later. There is still some signage left on the site but I understand they are no longer enforcing this and the restaurant has closed.
    • Curly girly
    • By Curly girly 11th Jul 17, 11:34 PM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Curly girly
    yes I'm on a laptop
    • Curly girly
    • By Curly girly 12th Jul 17, 6:37 AM
    • 23 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Curly girly
    Sorry for my ignorance. Why do you need to see the letterhead?
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Jul 17, 7:42 AM
    • 6,997 Posts
    • 6,066 Thanks
    The Deep
    Elliott v Loake has been rubbished by so many Judges that I am surprised that the SRA have not jumped on it, it is lying to the public, a fact which I pointed out to them over a year ago.


    This alone should be reason for this firm to be struck off.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jul 17, 8:30 AM
    • 5,921 Posts
    • 7,627 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Sorry for my ignorance. Why do you need to see the letterhead?
    Originally posted by Curly girly
    Hi again, the reason is for others to see that this is not a pimped
    out letterhead being used by a worthless debt collector.

    In view of what you said above, this is clearly a self ticket problem
    whereby the restaurant owner was paid commission to take pictures
    and send them to UK CPM
    Whilst not illegal, it is borderline as to being ethical.

    As Trading Standards have already been involved in this site.
    you must show them them a copy of this letter from Gladstones.

    The letter is menacing and threatening in that they quote cases
    that has nothing to do with your situation.
    For example, they refer to the "criminal case" of Elliot v Loake
    which is inferring you are a criminal ?

    Trading Standards are there to protect the public from false
    claims and a letter to try to extort money from you

    Send the letter coupon-mad has drafted for you as it is very
    powerful and will show the idiots at Gladstones you know more
    than they think you do.

    Gladstones are a very incompetent firm of solicitors who lose in court often.

    Let's see how they reply first. You have had 9 months of grief
    from this ticket so it's now time to give them grief
    It is vital that you show this Gladstones letter to Trading Standards
    and depending on their reply a complaint to the SRA

    When typing that letter, keep it professional and address
    them as Gladstones

    Dear Sirs,

    Yours faithfully

    Do not head it with ... "Without prejudice" as this is a letter
    you will want a judge to see
    Last edited by beamerguy; 12-07-2017 at 9:05 AM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
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

166Posts Today

1,348Users online

Martin's Twitter