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
    • Eni_Spaghetti
    • By Eni_Spaghetti 14th Jul 17, 9:53 AM
    • 14Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Eni_Spaghetti
    Gladstones Letter Before Claim
    • #1
    • 14th Jul 17, 9:53 AM
    Gladstones Letter Before Claim 14th Jul 17 at 9:53 AM
    Hi All,

    I have received a 'Letter Before Claim' from Gladstones and I was hoping for some advice. I have read a lot on the forums, but I have just confused myself.

    Some history:

    A person parked on private land, and overstayed their complimentary parking by a few minutes. They received a parking charge in the post (in their name, but wrong title). The person appealed.

    The parking company responded by rejecting the appeal, but the letter and response was addressed to me (my name but wrong title). I am not the registered keeper nor the registered owner nor did the driver give them my details. So I ignored it. I still don’t know how they got my details, or why they addressed the appeal response to me.

    Following a letter from a debt recovery company (also addressed to me, which I ignored), I have now received a ‘Letter Before Claim’ from Gladstone Solicitors saying I have 14 days to pay up or respond.

    Should I respond, or should I wait till court papers arrive? And am I mistaken for not responding to them sooner given the mix up on their part?

    If it goes to court, will the fact that I never received a parking charge notice in my name make a difference?

    Your advice is appreciated.
    Last edited by Eni_Spaghetti; 14-07-2017 at 10:48 AM. Reason: Driver details removed
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Jan 18, 9:48 PM
    • 52,824 Posts
    • 66,326 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    By not using photobucket, for a start (please, many of us can't see images there). Use dropbox, and change the http to hxxp.
    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.

    • Eni_Spaghetti
    • By Eni_Spaghetti 4th Jan 18, 1:04 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Eni_Spaghetti
    Here is the dropbox link, please let me know if it works.

    hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/bpef4nq5f6vshqy/IMAG0876.jpg?dl=0
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 4th Jan 18, 1:14 PM
    • 34,006 Posts
    • 17,952 Thanks
    Quentin
    www.dropbox.com/s/bpef4nq5f6vshqy/IMAG0876.jpg?dl=0
    • Eni_Spaghetti
    • By Eni_Spaghetti 4th Jan 18, 1:19 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Eni_Spaghetti
    Thanks Quentin
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Jan 18, 10:11 PM
    • 52,824 Posts
    • 66,326 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If you are neither the driver nor the keeper then you don't need generic distractions like this point:

    12.1. 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.
    As an aside, please contact WHICH? magazine using the easy link from this thread to tell them briefly of your plight. The more people who contact WHICH, the more likely they are to take up this unregulated scam industry as their next cause:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5765579
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 05-01-2018 at 11:37 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.

    • Eni_Spaghetti
    • By Eni_Spaghetti 6th Jan 18, 9:29 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Eni_Spaghetti
    Thanks CM, will do.
    • Eni_Spaghetti
    • By Eni_Spaghetti 12th Jan 18, 9:25 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Eni_Spaghetti
    2nd Draft
    Hi All,

    Here is a second draft of the defence (which needs to be submitted tomorrow). Could someone let me know if points 5 and 12 / 12.1 are relevant or if I should remove them.

    Thanks in advance
    Eni_Spaghetti

    1. I, XXXXXXXXXXXXX, the defendant, deny that I am liable to the claimant for the entirety of the claim.

    2. The defendant has previously written to the claimant informing them that the defendant is not the registered keeper of the vehicle or was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident.

    3. The defendant does not know how the claimant has obtained their details, and has previously requested that the claimant update their records after informing them of the above in line with the data protection act, which the claimant has failed to do.

    4. The defendant can prove that they were at work, approximately 40 miles away from the car park at the time of the alleged breach of contract.

    5. The claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017). As an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence.

    6. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the defendant. 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).

    7. 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.”

    8. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    9. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

    10. 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 ‘robo-claims’ and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point.

    11. The claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 'legal representative’s (or even admin) costs’ were incurred.

    12. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply made up numbers. 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.

    12.1. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

    13. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping a note of the wasted time & costs in dealing with this matter.

    14. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above and due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.

    15. I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
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

337Posts Today

2,319Users online

Martin's Twitter