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
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 17th Sep 17, 12:12 PM
    • 6,183Posts
    • 7,913Thanks
    beamerguy
    Gladstones --- THE PURGE
    • #1
    • 17th Sep 17, 12:12 PM
    Gladstones --- THE PURGE 17th Sep 17 at 12:12 PM
    We are seeing more Gladstones activity of late
    threatening people with court

    Now, we are all aware that Gladstones are incompetent
    but this could be to do with the new government rules
    about taking people to court which comes in on 1st Oct

    This purge could well be getting claims in before that date

    At this stage, anyone receiving these threatening letters
    from Gladstones should respond if the letter ref starts with #1

    All of these should be responded to by the keeper, not driver,
    stating that any debt is denied and requesting proof of
    their claim
    Keep a copy of the letter or email

    As Gladstones are known to ignore anything they do not
    understand, it is possible such requests will be ignored

    However, if they continue to court the judge must be informed
    that you attempted to mitigate, this was ignored and to date
    no answer was provided.

    As the courts well know about Gladstones, such ignorance
    would go in your favour.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
Page 2
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 21st Sep 17, 12:30 PM
    • 567 Posts
    • 999 Thanks
    safarmuk
    This however does rather make our policy of issuing:
    * LBCs for DPA breaches to PPCs or;
    * LBCs to Landowners/Freeholders and Management Agents (in residential cases)
    Somewhat more onerous as well ... however overall it is for the best I guess.

    As of 1st October do we need to mention this when we refer people to the LBCs that LOC123 wrote for "Hairray"? Indeed do we need to update those templates (and Lynzer's on Pepipoo)?
    Last edited by safarmuk; 21-09-2017 at 12:34 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Sep 17, 12:32 PM
    • 50,764 Posts
    • 64,184 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes it means we will need to update our advice.
    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.

    • Castle
    • By Castle 21st Sep 17, 1:21 PM
    • 1,283 Posts
    • 1,671 Thanks
    Castle
    This however does rather make our policy of issuing:
    * LBCs for DPA breaches to PPCs or;
    * LBCs to Landowners/Freeholders and Management Agents (in residential cases)
    Somewhat more onerous as well ... however overall it is for the best I guess.
    Originally posted by safarmuk
    The protocol only applies to "debts" owed by an individual to a business.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 21st Sep 17, 1:26 PM
    • 2,120 Posts
    • 6,033 Thanks
    bargepole
    The protocol only applies to "debts" owed by an individual to a business.
    Originally posted by Castle
    Correct. If the Claimant is a private individual, then the new protocol does not apply.

    However, if he is a sole trader, eg Joe Bloggs T/A Bodgit & Scarper Plumbers, the protocol will apply.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 28. Lost 9.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 21st Sep 17, 1:44 PM
    • 567 Posts
    • 999 Thanks
    safarmuk
    Correct. If the Claimant is a private individual, then the new protocol does not apply.
    So to be quite clear the exact changes are:
    * GS (on behalf of a PPC) sending safarmuk a LBC after Oct 1st ---> must adhere to the new pre-action protocols
    * safarmuk sending a LBC to "stupid management agents ltd." after Oct 1st ----> keep going as you were chap

    Oh, for once I am completely happy to be wrong ... this makes things much easier.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 21st Sep 17, 3:37 PM
    • 528 Posts
    • 950 Thanks
    Johnersh
    @safarmuk that is correct, because you are an individual not writing in the capacity of your business or receiving and/or corresponding in connection with a company vehicle.

    So, to recap, the PPC has a longer protocol for debts, but you decide to run a DPA claim technically there is no need to comply with it at all.
    • ckershaw
    • By ckershaw 4th Oct 17, 11:19 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    ckershaw
    So what are the main changes that have now come into affect, I tried looking at the governments page but it's too long and confusing.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Oct 17, 1:14 PM
    • 50,764 Posts
    • 64,184 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Look at a solicitor's website result instead; e.g. Hill Dickinson had a summary I saw.
    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.

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Oct 17, 2:20 PM
    • 1,264 Posts
    • 2,162 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    The point being missed here as well is that a claim for DAMAGES (ie breach of DPA/trespass/breach of right to quiet enjoyment) is not a DEBT.
    The new Protocol applies to DEBTS, and of course it also applies when it is a business seeking recovery against an individual.
    So the new Protocol applies to the PPCs but rather pleasingly not to us ordinary folk.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 4th Oct 17, 7:39 PM
    • 6,183 Posts
    • 7,913 Thanks
    beamerguy
    As predicted the Gladstones boys have been busy
    to beat the 1st Oct new procedure.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 5th Oct 17, 9:30 AM
    • 798 Posts
    • 597 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    Look at a solicitor's website result instead; e.g. Hill Dickinson had a summary I saw.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad


    https://www.hilldickinson.com/insights/articles/new-pre-action-protocol-debt-claims
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 5th Oct 17, 10:59 AM
    • 6,183 Posts
    • 7,913 Thanks
    beamerguy
    This is the perspective of a Real solicitor which is good.

    Those legals involved in the great parking scam will now have
    to comply and given their already past poor history, they
    will struggle but, with the amount of extra work they must do,
    they may see the many flaws of claims that before this
    procedure they probably did not know about or ignored

    As said in the link
    "The Pre-action Protocol for debt claims comes into force on 1 October 2017 and will potentially have a severe impact on a business if it has outstanding debts due from individuals."
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 5th Oct 17, 11:45 AM
    • 567 Posts
    • 999 Thanks
    safarmuk
    Good article, well written and clear.

    I noted this line from the article:

    No longer will such a creditor be able to bring greater pressure to bear on a debtor by the prospect of imminent court proceedings.
    However, one can only think that this change has come about because others (not this firm) have abused the old protocols and therefore everyone including legitimate and reputable debt collection teams now have to adhere to these new rules.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 5th Oct 17, 12:12 PM
    • 7,191 Posts
    • 6,242 Thanks
    The Deep
    I hope so. PPCs should, in most cases not ne going to court anyway. Fluttering tickets, wrong VRN, own space, leaving site etc., are not real debts and courts should come down hard on those who think they are.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 5th Oct 17, 1:20 PM
    • 567 Posts
    • 999 Thanks
    safarmuk
    I hope so. PPCs should, in most cases not ne going to court anyway. Fluttering tickets, wrong VRN, own space, leaving site etc., are not real debts and courts should come down hard on those who think they are.
    I agree.

    In that recent (terrible) ITV programme on PPCs they spoke to the IPC, who said their members are there to protect landowners and those with a right to park, yet the interviewer never followed up with one such obvious question which would be "why do you then insist on pursuing residents whom your members give tickets to when they identify themselves as such?"
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

4,923Posts Today

5,035Users 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