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
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 24th Aug 17, 8:32 PM
    • 42Posts
    • 28Thanks
    wi3347
    Gladstones / Millennium claim form
    • #1
    • 24th Aug 17, 8:32 PM
    Gladstones / Millennium claim form 24th Aug 17 at 8:32 PM
    Hello everyone, posted on here before about a PCN I had in 2012 which ended up in court and had some really good advice so posting here again. The vehicle im registered keeper for got a PCN in November last year. Its reached the claim form stage. I have done the acknowledgement of service on MCOL and need to submit my defence. The details of the PCN are.
    Name of the Claimant ? Millennium door and event security ltd.
    claimants Solicitors: Gladstones solicitors Ltd

    Date of issue – 09 Aug 2017 .

    Particulars of claim –
    1. "The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXXX (the vehicle) incurred the parking charge on 15/11/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on land at Metropole Chambers Swansea SA13RT.

    2.The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle

    3.and the claimant claims £160 for parking charges / damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £8.35 pursuant to s69 of the country courts act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to judgement at £0.04 per day."

    What is the value of the claim? total of £243.35

    the initial online defence im going to submit tomorrow (pending advice) is

    The whole claim is denied in its entirety for a number of reasons which will be expanded upon in my witness statement should this claim be allocated to the small claims track.

    1. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the aleged contravention.
    2. The claimant is required under schedule 4 of the Protection of freedoms act 2012, to adhere to a number of strict requirements set out within that act in order to transfer liability to the registered keeper and has failed to do so, therefore the defendant is not liable in this matter as he was not the driver and POFA 2012 has not been complied with.
    3. The wording of the signage at the location is confusing and contradictory so cannot be said to be a genuine offer to form a contract. The claimant states the claim is for "parking charges" yet at the location there is no tariff of charges to refer to nor any way offered to pay the prescribed fee if it was deemed to be a contract and that the offer was accepted.
    4.It is unclear from the Particulars or claim if the claimant seeks to claim from the driver or rely on the POFA 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper. It clearly states in POFA 2012 that the claimants cannot claim for more than is stated in the original notice to keeper, in this case £100.
    5. The claimant has made a number of unsubstantiated claims in the courts and are abusing the court process as a method of intimidation or coercion rather than for collecting monies they have proper entitlement to and the defendant invites the court to strike out the claim.

    any help / advice / recommendations is much appreciated!
Page 3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Sep 17, 11:41 AM
    • 51,518 Posts
    • 65,133 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    ''offer to settle'' as in (not YOU offering some money!). Make it clear and make the offer time-bound.

    As Johnersh suggests, this could be a 'drop hands offer' (no money either way) if you'd like it all over - or ask THEM for say £250 settlement, or you will pursue a DPA breach claim for misappropriation of your private DVLA data* without any 'reasonable cause', contrary to the DVLA KADOE rules.

    so write directly to millennium, rather than gladstones?
    No, everything goes to Gladstones. When we say 'them' we mean their solicitors.



    * if the DVLA data was obtained - postal PCN or NTK served?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-09-2017 at 11:44 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.

    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 9th Sep 17, 11:56 AM
    • 653 Posts
    • 1,238 Thanks
    Johnersh
    My proposal was to write explaining that you will permit them to discontinue if your modest expenses are paid (land registry fees) or you'll seek costs of defending.

    The problem with seeking £250 now is that it probably does not form part of a counterclaim advanced by you, so technically there is no requirement to make it. There is, of course, nothing to stop you filing court proceedings later.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 9th Sep 17, 12:30 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    I'm with you. I will write to them then and make a drop hands offer. I don't want any money from them I just want the whole thing done and dusted. I will draft something up tonight and post it up here for comments / suggestions as per!
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 15th Sep 17, 2:55 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Thinking of going with this as my drop hands offers.. any suggestions please?

    RE: claim xxxxx

    To whom it may concern,

    Further to my defence which has been received by the courts which I trust you will have been served a copy of by now, I have carried out additional research and discovered the following points which you should relay to your client.

    A search of the Swansea city council planning portal shows your client has no planning permission from the Swansea city council for the parking signs at the location. I have reported this to the Swansea city council who inform me they have assigned an investigations officer to the case who will be visiting the site in the coming days, if they haven’t already and will be advising further after this visit. It is an offence under the town and county planning act 1990 to erect advertisement/signage of this nature without permission from the Swansea city council and as a result the signage at the sight is incapable of binding anyone to anything as it appears to be illegal in effect.

    Your notice to keeper (NTK) states the contravention was at “metropole chambers, salubrious passage”. It clearly states in the protection of freedoms act that the address must be correctly stated on the NTK as one of the conditions to pass liability to the registered keeper. I have received the building plan and title from the land registry office for “metropole chambers”. It clearly shows the boundary line for “metropole chambers” is the building alone and not the land outside. The vehicle of which I am registered keeper was parked outside the boundary line of the metropole chambers, meaning the only way your NTK could be correct and legally binding is if the vehicle was parked inside the actual building which quite clearly it was not. I have contacted the Swansea council highways department who have confirmed for me via email that the salubrious passage is an adopted public highway, maintained by the city and county of Swansea, making it public land. It is therefore in any case, not possible for your client to enforce parking at this site in the first place.

    I have copies of my correspondence with the Swansea city councils planning department, highways department and the lard registry documents which I will produce to the court as evidence should your client wish to continue to a hearing.

    In light of the above, along with the other points raised in my defence, I believe that this claim has absolutely no realistic prospect of success and I offer your client to withdraw the claim. Should your client choose to discontinue with this claim entirely, as a gesture of goodwill I allow them to discontinue without seeking recovery of my costs thus far. This is a generous offer in light of the overwhelming evidence that this claim shall not be successful for your client and it will save them a lot of money to take this one time offer now.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th Sep 17, 3:27 PM
    • 4,479 Posts
    • 2,804 Thanks
    KeithP
    'sight' or 'site'?
    .
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 15th Sep 17, 8:33 PM
    • 1,178 Posts
    • 2,337 Thanks
    Lamilad
    I think your letter should be short and blunt. It will be more hard-hitting.

    I know it's tempting to write a long 'legal-sounding' letter to 'scare them off' but it can have the opposite effect if you say more than you need to.

    The stuff about unauthorised signage is unlikely to cut any mustard, I've never known a judge give two-hoots about this. They'll rebut saying that their signage does form a contract and planning permission would, in any case, have no bearing on this.

    I think you're 'reaching' with the PoFA "correct address" stuff. I think they could easily argue they've stated the correct address. It's very possible that, somewhere along the line, they haven't complied with PoFA so I would just tell them that their NTK does not comply do you cannot be held liable as keeper, and you will prove this in court should the matter proceed to a hearing

    If the land where the vehicle was parked is indeed 'council owned' then this is without doubt your strongest point, I'd say it's a slam dunk! So I wouldn't water it down by surrounding it with less strong points.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 15th Sep 17, 8:58 PM
    • 653 Posts
    • 1,238 Thanks
    Johnersh
    +1 Lamilad.

    Pithy is the word. If you can't keep it to 1 side of A4 it's far too long.

    You don't need superfluous argument. As I recall they are ticketing public highway. Unless they are authorised by the local authority the claim is likely to fail...

    Provide them with the copy document showing its public highway, then write in similar terms to the below:

    The claimant is invited to withdraw his claim with no order for costs. This is a "drop hands" offer to settle with each party bearing their own costs. The offer is available for acceptance for a period of [ ] days from the date of this letter.

    The terms of the offer have value to the claimant insofar as the defendant will not seek his costs of defending the action, where recoverable and will not pursue any additional but related claim(s) in connection with the unauthorised ticketing on public highway.

    If the offer is not accepted, the defendant will seek to claim his costs of the defence and additional costs for unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR Part 27.
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 16th Sep 17, 10:21 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Fair enough laddies and gents, as always i trust your advice, i have altered it to

    To whom it may concern,

    Further to my defence which has been received by the court I have carried out additional research and discovered the follow which you should relay to your client.

    I have received the building plan and title from the land registry office for “Metropole chambers”. It clearly shows the boundary line for Metropole chambers is the building alone and not the land outside. The vehicle that I am registered keeper of was parked outside the boundary line of the metropole chambers, on salubrious passage. I have contacted the Swansea council highways department who have confirmed for me via email that the salubrious passage is an adopted public highway, maintained by the city and county of Swansea, making it public land. It is therefore in any case, not possible for your client to enforce parking at this site in the first place.

    I have enclosed copies of correspondence with the highways department and the land registry documents with this letter, which I will produce to the court as evidence should your client wish to continue to a hearing.

    In light of the above, along with the other points raised in my defence, this claim has no realistic prospect of success and the claimant is invited to withdraw the claim with no order for costs. This is a "drop hands" offer to settle with each party bearing their own costs. The offer is available for acceptance for a period of 14 days from the date of this letter.

    The terms of the offer have value to the claimant insofar as the defendant will not seek his costs of defending the action, where recoverable and will not pursue any additional but related claims in connection with the unauthorised ticketing on public highway.

    If the offer is not accepted, the defendant will seek to claim his costs of the defence and additional costs for unreasonable conduct pursuant to CPR Part 27.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Sep 17, 10:42 AM
    • 15,509 Posts
    • 24,231 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I'd add 'Should the case proceed to a court hearing where I am successful, this clear infringement of the International Parking Community's Code or Practice will be reported to the DVLA with a request that your client is suspended from further access to the registered keeper database'.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 16th Sep 17, 1:07 PM
    • 1,178 Posts
    • 2,337 Thanks
    Lamilad
    I have received the building plan and title from the land registry office for “Metropole chambers”. It clearly shows the boundary line for Metropole chambers is the building alone and not the land outside. The vehicle that I am registered keeper of was parked outside the boundary line of the metropole chambers, on salubrious passage.
    Don't bother with this it's wishy-washy.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 17, 1:14 PM
    • 51,518 Posts
    • 65,133 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I agree, I'd have just gone with Johnersh's words and almost nothing else except this as an intro:

    I have contacted the Swansea Council Highways Department who have confirmed for me via email (copy below) that Salubrious Passage is an adopted public highway, maintained by the city and county of Swansea, making it public land. It is therefore not possible for your client to enforce parking at this site in the first place and to attempt to do so is likely to be an offence.
    'Council Highways Dept' and Salubrious Passage needs capital initials!
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-09-2017 at 12:16 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.

    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 16th Sep 17, 1:21 PM
    • 1,178 Posts
    • 2,337 Thanks
    Lamilad
    I'd have just gone with Johersh's words and almost nothing else except this as an intro:
    +1 and double check spelling before you send......
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 16th Sep 17, 8:24 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    Why I think its relevant to briefly mention the LR search is because the vehicle was parked on Salubrious Passage which is public land and not on land covered by the boundary of Metropole chambers. Its quite pivotal to this argument that i demonstrate the car was on public land and not land which comes under their boundary
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th Sep 17, 8:39 PM
    • 4,479 Posts
    • 2,804 Thanks
    KeithP
    Why I think its relevant to briefly mention the LR search is because the vehicle was parked on Salubrious Passage which is public land and not on land covered by the boundary of Metropole chambers. Its quite pivotal to this argument that i demonstrate the car was on public land and not land which comes under their boundary
    Originally posted by wi3347
    And Swansea council's Highway Dept confirms this.

    I too would go with C-M's suggestion.

    The Land Registry stuff adds nothing.
    .
    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 16th Sep 17, 8:54 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    And Swansea council's Highway Dept confirms this.

    I too would go with C-M's suggestion.

    The Land Registry stuff adds nothing.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    The email from the highways department confirmed that Salubrious passage is an adopted highway and it maintained by the city and county of Swansea. It doesn't demonstrate that my vehicle was parked there. The NTK i got through the post states the vehicle was parked at "Metropole Chambers" which millennium may well have authority to enforce parking on. I think be making it clean the car was parked on Salubrious Passage and not parked in an area covered by the boundary of Metropole chambers it makes it clear it was on public land. Doesn't leave it open for debate
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th Sep 17, 9:11 PM
    • 4,479 Posts
    • 2,804 Thanks
    KeithP
    The email from the highways department confirmed that Salubrious passage is an adopted highway and it maintained by the city and county of Swansea. It doesn't demonstrate that my vehicle was parked there. The NTK i got through the post states the vehicle was parked at "Metropole Chambers" which millennium may well have authority to enforce parking on. I think be making it clean the car was parked on Salubrious Passage and not parked in an area covered by the boundary of Metropole chambers it makes it clear it was on public land. Doesn't leave it open for debate
    Originally posted by wi3347
    You told us the LR confirms:
    It clearly shows the boundary line for Metropole chambers is the building alone and not the land outside.
    If the car was parked outside the building, it couldn't have been in Metropole Chambers, could it?

    Anyway, it is no-one on this forum you need to convince.
    .
    • softwaremad
    • By softwaremad 17th Sep 17, 12:46 AM
    • 148 Posts
    • 211 Thanks
    softwaremad
    Loving the salubrious. Gossip in from last night that this is a method used with millennium to get tickets cancelled down that way.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Sep 17, 1:03 AM
    • 51,518 Posts
    • 65,133 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Loving the salubrious. Gossip in from last night that this is a method used with millennium to get tickets cancelled down that way.
    Originally posted by softwaremad


    No, no and more no...! That's almost on a par with Levi Bellfield's alleged *offers* to remove clamps, back in the day.

    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.

    • wi3347
    • By wi3347 17th Sep 17, 1:45 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    wi3347
    I think we are getting confused a bit now. They are saying The car was parked on land covered by metropole chambers. My point is The car was parked on salubrious passage, public land. If I just say"salubrious passage is public land" well that makes no difference unless I'm making it clear I was parked there and not at metropole chambers.

    Received the copy of the directions questions today. Gladstones have requested not to have a hearing and do it all on paper. Seems to be their thing lately.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Sep 17, 1:51 PM
    • 51,518 Posts
    • 65,133 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Gladstones have used that tactic for ages, very misleading for the unwary.
    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

5,139Posts Today

7,359Users online

Martin's Twitter