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
    • chad888
    • By chad888 15th Sep 17, 10:46 AM
    • 14Posts
    • 14Thanks
    chad888
    I BEAT GLADSTONES/HORIZON IN COURT - My story
    • #1
    • 15th Sep 17, 10:46 AM
    I BEAT GLADSTONES/HORIZON IN COURT - My story 15th Sep 17 at 10:46 AM
    Case number: C7GF62FE – Horizon Parking –vs- Mr Cottom in Birmingham County Court

    Case was set to start at 10:00, I arrived at 09:40 and asked the usher if the other party had checked in. She said yes and confirmed that they were an agent and neither worked for Gladstones or Horizon. I handed her my ‘preliminary document set’ on rights of audience – the Law Gazette article and the case law between Mcshane vs Lincoln (where the case was thrown out due to rights of audience. Unfortunately I left ALL my evidence, my defence, my witness statement, the claimants defence in my work house 200 miles away so didn’t have them with me; luckily I had memorised everything.

    At around 11:30 we got into the room, it was the same agent that had turned up for the last hearing which was adjourned (because I hadn’t signed my evidence or witness statement). After the last hearing ended he gave me some ‘advice’ on what to argue based on his understanding of the case, these were the fees involved that had been added on for solicitor services etc. Well the judge allowed him to make his opening argument and thank god I didn’t listen to his ‘advice’ and base my defence on that because he did a big speech about how the fees were reasonable and they were justified in different case law.

    One of the key points of my argument were that one of the 2 parking tickets given to me was for an 11 minute overstay but the contract that Horizon have with the agent that represents the land owner allows for a 20 minute grace period. The agent stated that Horizon wish to remove this claim from the books and pursue the one overstay of 41 minutes. I objected saying that Horizon have compiled these 2 tickets into 1 claim and therefore both tickets should be considered under the same judgement and if the overstay is found within the grace period then the claim be dismissed. The judge disagreed and allowed the 1 ticket to be struck out.

    The judge then asked who had handed him the rights of audience documents, I then questioned whether the agent held right of audience as he didn’t satisfy the points layed out in the set. The judge asked the agent to address my question and the agent went into a long winded speech about how this is just an internet thing and it has no place in the court room and he is a legal executive he has rights and he is a representative hired by the parking company to represent them as they are a long way away, etc etc. He finished off quoting a paragraph number in a law book which allowed him right of audience, the judge got the book off the shelf and went to the page and chapter and it was something about domestic housing matters which was not relevant. I pointed out that in the case law I presented, the law was explained, so he flicked through the documents and stated that as he was hired by the parking company to attend then he was involved in the litigation whether that was just turning up today as a representative, he had rights of audience.

    He asked me what my argument was and I stated that my argument was based on A) Insufficient signage, contrary to the ’44 signs’ that the claimant is claiming; B) Payment is not justified as shown by the Beavis case ruling that £85 was sufficient and still does not represent loss, in fact they have actually stated in the witness statement that the costs are incurred through time wasted pursuing the charge which is dangerous territory if you can sue someone a set amount for wasting time; C) There is no contract chain between the landowner and Horizon, and the contract states that Horizon may pursue charges but there is no mention of court claims, especially in their own name and that an overstay is a breach of land and it is Horizons job to manage that land and then the landowners discretion to allow me to park and if I overstay then they should be the ones to put in a claim, and I doubt that Horizon will give any of the money from this claim over.

    The judge attacked my argument stating that if there is really insufficient signs then what, you think that you can park there forever? He then dismissed us both so that he could read through the papers and we left.

    When we were called back in, some 20 minutes later, the judge asked me to state out my argument and that due to time constraints and because I am representing myself and have no idea on what is supposed to happen he will address each argument as I present them.

    I started with the signs:

    1) The first sign stating it is private land – I presented a google maps image taken from 2015 which showed that there was no electronic display board with registration and time to leave at the entrance like Horizon had argued, and that the Private land sign was on the opposite side of the road of a 3 lane carriageway. It was also right on the side of a roundabout, so if you are manoeuvring the roundabout you will not see the sign across 3 lanes of traffic on the corner.
    2) The 2nd sign stating there will be terms and conditions - again on the opposite side of a 3 lane highway about 6ft off the ground which is easily obscured by any tall vehicle and which is behind the site that is generally where the lorries park to unload stock into the McDonalds, so anybody driving in will miss this sign. The google map image of the sign shows the glare from the sun has completely obscured this sign, and that is zoomed in, all you can see is the big letters stating “FREE PARKING”. Across 3 lanes of traffic with glare from the sun, it is easy to not see or miss this sign.
    3) The terms and conditions signs – there are only 4 of these in a 700 space car park. The first sign is on the 3rd row of cars, and arriving at the time of morning that I did, I would have parked in the first row of cars as the car park would have been empty. My overhead view of the car park showed that you can go from the point in question and walk to the shops, do a loop of the 15 shops and never ever encounter a T&C sign.
    4) The witness statement states that the claim is for time wasted on pursuing the driver information, this is part of the job role and that which they are hired to do, it is in the contract for services and therefore these costs are not claimable. Claiming for wasted time could then be put to any matter and allow anybody to sue anybody else for perceived waste of time.
    5) The damages that are being claimed for do not relate to any damages construed by the claimant, in fact an overstay of 21 minutes, the only person being damaged it actually the shop owners through loss of sales, as it is a free car park even the landowner is not affected. Any damages should have been claimed by the shops and Horizon are so far removed from the process as they just installed cameras. This is akin to me hiring a security guard to protect a shop, and then suing any thief in his own name and keeping the money made, whilst I lose stock and gain nothing.
    6) The fact that I didn’t see the signs when parking does not mean that I can park there forever, there is a car park over the road which has 1 supermarket and it features the signs prominently and states 4 hour stay. For this car park if I entered and did not see the signs, I would take for an example that car park which has 1 store and apply that to the 15 stores present and add reasonable additional time to it and believe my car could stay for 5-6 hours maybe.

    The judge stopped me at this point and asked the agent to cross examine me, but as he had never been to the car park and was merely an agent for the company hired the day before his cross examination was based on the evidence presented. He showed me the electronic sign at the entrance, which I rebuffed with my google maps image from the time showing it isn’t present. He presented me the entrance ‘P’ sign which I rebuffed stating that I had already shown that it is very easy to enter the car park without seeing this sign and knowing you are entering a contract. He then showed me a google maps overview of the car park with 44 coloured dots on which it is claimed represented the positions of all the T&C signs. I stated that I do not agree with that at all, my google maps images of all around the car park shows that there are only 4 signs in the car park and I was only made aware of these by looking on google maps when collecting my defence. He argued that why is my google maps image acceptable to me but his isn’t, I tried to argue back to say “I don’t think google maps are the ones that put the coloured dots on the map to identify the signs, that was done by Horizon and they have not supplied any pictures of the car park, the entrance, the signs in place at the time of the claim like I have”.

    The judge held his hand up and said I don’t need to say anything he knows my point exactly, he stops the agent and says the claim is dismissed and explained why. He said I am clearly an intelligent young man and have so comprehensively and intelligently taken apart the witness statement and evidence supplied by the claimant that he has no doubt in his mind that myself or anybody entering that car park would struggle to be aware they are in a contract.

    I asked if I would be allowed to place claims as I have had to take a day off leave, he consulted his book and says that I can claim for fuel costs (8.2mi each way @ £0.45 a mile) and up to £95 in leave loss. I asked for £80 and presented my wage slip to the agent to agree. He argued that I shouldn’t be able to claim it because I am on an annual salary and get paid leave, I told him that is why I get to claim loss of earnings OR loss of leave and I have lost a day of my leave allowance. The judge agreed and said that I am awarded £89. He didn’t allow me to claim for the adjourned case as the DDJ hearing that reserved the costs of that date until this hearing.

    And that is how I beat Gladstones and Horizon!
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 15th Sep 17, 11:09 AM
    • 5,918 Posts
    • 7,619 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 15th Sep 17, 11:09 AM
    • #2
    • 15th Sep 17, 11:09 AM
    Thank you, a great report

    It really is impossible to understand why any of these PPC's
    would consider Gladstones in the first place
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 15th Sep 17, 12:05 PM
    • 874 Posts
    • 1,837 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #3
    • 15th Sep 17, 12:05 PM
    • #3
    • 15th Sep 17, 12:05 PM
    Loved reading that. Well done.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Sep 17, 12:31 PM
    • 49,919 Posts
    • 63,336 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 17, 12:31 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 17, 12:31 PM
    Brilliant, thanks for that summary.

    Flipping heck the reps are nasty:

    I asked for £80 and presented my wage slip to the agent to agree. He argued that I shouldn’t be able to claim it because I am on an annual salary and get paid leave, I told him that is why I get to claim loss of earnings OR loss of leave and I have lost a day of my leave allowance.
    He is legally qualified and knows that you ARE allowed to claim 'loss of leave' (luckily, so did you!).

    Congrats!

    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 15th Sep 17, 12:49 PM
    • 5,918 Posts
    • 7,619 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #5
    • 15th Sep 17, 12:49 PM
    • #5
    • 15th Sep 17, 12:49 PM
    Brilliant, thanks for that summary.

    Flipping heck the reps are nasty:

    He is legally qualified and knows that you ARE allowed to claim 'loss of leave' (luckily, so did you!).

    Congrats!

    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    C-M its all part of the "street gang" that Gladstones operate

    Kray Twins in operation again
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 15th Sep 17, 9:17 PM
    • 404 Posts
    • 728 Thanks
    Johnersh
    • #6
    • 15th Sep 17, 9:17 PM
    • #6
    • 15th Sep 17, 9:17 PM
    Congratulations. The DJ was, I believe, wrong on advocacy amounting to the conduct of the litigation. It doesn't. This point is highly technical though, so often hard to get traction on.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Sep 17, 9:32 PM
    • 14,473 Posts
    • 22,755 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 15th Sep 17, 9:32 PM
    • #7
    • 15th Sep 17, 9:32 PM
    Wow, great account of your demolition of the case. I'm impressed by how you weren't cowed by a Judge and a Legal Representative, not only fending off the stuff they threw at you, but coming back with assertive points of your own.

    Brilliant!
    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.
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

2,903Posts Today

8,388Users online

Martin's Twitter