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
    • ndon2017
    • By ndon2017 3rd Oct 17, 9:08 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 5Thanks
    ndon2017
    COURT DATE SET - Two PCM Tickets whilst parked outside my house
    • #1
    • 3rd Oct 17, 9:08 PM
    COURT DATE SET - Two PCM Tickets whilst parked outside my house 3rd Oct 17 at 9:08 PM
    Hi everyone,

    Was wondering if anyone could help me..

    I have received two PCM parking tickets during my time at my university house. Both times the vehicle was parked within 10 metres of my door, the first was taken on Monday 9th January 2017 at 21:41, the second time was at 19:30 on the Monday 20th February 2017. The first ticket has now gone as far as receiving a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (hearing) on 28th November.

    It is a residential area that has 2 permits per household and a parking space which we had issues with as the neighbours would park there car in it and not move it for weeks at a time.

    My housemates boyfriend recently won a court case against PCM/Gladstones for a ticket he received whilst parked outside of the house. This is his thread:

    forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5549342#topofpage

    What is it i need to do next to make sure i do not loose this court case? At the moment the two tickets are being treated separately.

    Any help would be much appreciated!
    Last edited by ndon2017; 03-10-2017 at 9:21 PM. Reason: Court date set
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Oct 17, 12:06 AM
    • 51,747 Posts
    • 65,385 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 4th Oct 17, 12:06 AM
    • #2
    • 4th Oct 17, 12:06 AM
    Firstly, copy your defence here so we can see what you put as your case, when you got the claim.
    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.

    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 4th Oct 17, 5:59 AM
    • 1,812 Posts
    • 3,203 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 17, 5:59 AM
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 17, 5:59 AM
    +1 above

    If the court date is set for one and not the other, write to the court and ask both to be scheduled at the same time to save the court's time and expense
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • ndon2017
    • By ndon2017 4th Oct 17, 8:55 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    ndon2017
    • #4
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:55 PM
    Defence
    • #4
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:55 PM
    Hi, thanks for the reply.. This is my defence:

    I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:



    1. It is admitted that the defendant, ####, residing at ###### is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the vehicle having been parked at #####, on 09/01/2017.

    2. The vehicle was at all times when at the residence, properly parked and it is believed it is common ground that it was neither causing an obstruction nor was it unauthorised, being parked at the permission of a permitted resident.

    3. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    4. The vehicle was parked within 10 metres of my residence and I have evidence that I have lived at this property since September 2016.

    5. This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim.

    6. This claim merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example, whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

    7. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

    8. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    9. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

    10. A covenant for quiet enjoyment is a standard feature in modern leases and ASTs and is implied where not expressly provided, along with rights to pass and re-pass and park, as was offered by the landlord to this tenant and the tenant's legitimate visitors. This was an integral part of the rented property as offered to the tenant at the time of signing that agreement, which this parking firm are not a party to and nor were their terms or charges a feature of the tenancy agreement.

    11. Even if there are signs put up, terms cannot be retrospectively added into a contract by a third party; a parking firm cannot disregard the rights of tenants and their visitors, delivery drivers etc. as was found by a Senior Circuit Judge, Charles Harris QC, in June 2016.

    12. Authorities to support my defence include but are not limited to the (higher court level) Appeal case heard at Oxford County Court by Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC, in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. Similar Small Claim decisions in 2016 include Pace v Mr N C6GF14F0 and Link Parking v Ms P - C7GF50J7. All three cases were brought by Gladstones for parking operators (including the original Jopson claim which went to appeal and is persuasive on the lower Courts). In all cases, it was found that the parking company could not override residents’ existing rights by requiring a permit to park and that the signs were of no consequence, due to the primacy of contract enjoyed by the Defendants. His Honour Charles Harris QC remarked in the Jopson appeal case decision that life in a resident’s block would be unworkable if visitors, delivery drivers etc. were expected to park immediately obtaining a permit (which a visitor would not have).

    13. Even if the Court is minded to consider that a visitor must display a permit there must be a reasonable 'grace period' time allowed for fetching it from the resident (which involves 4 flights of stairs and conversation) and there is no evidence that this time was allowed. Immediate ticketing or lack of a fair grace period is contrary to the IPC code of practice, being a predatory and unfair business practice.

    14. Should the Court be satisfied that there is a potential cause of action, there are no road markings or bays etc.; this is not a car park, just an unmarked cul-de-sac street, the photos shown by this claimant merely show very poorly lit signs, which would have made it impossible for a driver to read terms or learn of the parking charge buried in unremarkable small print. It seems that it was pitch black, so unlike in the far more complex case of!ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis![2015] UKSC 67, the driver cannot be bound by terms on a sign never seen, parking on an unmarked residential road. It is trite law on-street (had this been Council highway, where the TMA2004 applies as well as the Highway Code) that no markings suggest no restrictions.

    15. So, if an operator wishes to fairly and prominently alert drivers to a parking charge and other onerous terms, they must mark the road and ensure the signs are clear, lit and in large lettering. Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' applies; a driver cannot be bound by terms not brought to his/her attention in the clearest way, such that the driver would be bound to have seen and read the terms and learnt of the 'parking charge'. This was certainly not the case.

    16. Even if the court believes the signs were possible to see in the dark, the wording is prohibitive, it states you must display a permit to park, forbidding parking otherwise. It is therefore unable to offer a legitimate contact allowing parking for £100 if the driver decides to park. As Seen in PCM vs Bull (2016) where PCM used similar signage and the verdict summarised that all the sign is essentially saying is “you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass”, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass. This verdict has been reached in regard to PCM signage of this nature at numerous other claim hearings, IPC signage does not create a contract as the notice is forbidding.

    17. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

    18. The alleged debt(s) as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.
    19. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

    20. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    21. I request the court strike out the claim for reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, 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''.

    Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    Last edited by ndon2017; 04-10-2017 at 9:05 PM.
    • ndon2017
    • By ndon2017 4th Oct 17, 8:56 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    ndon2017
    • #5
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:56 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:56 PM
    IamEmanresu I have not received any court letters for one of my claims, just Gladstones letters.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 4th Oct 17, 8:59 PM
    • 33,509 Posts
    • 17,390 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #6
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:59 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:59 PM
    Urgently edit your post to remove everything that identifies you.


    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts here against you
    • ndon2017
    • By ndon2017 4th Oct 17, 9:05 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    ndon2017
    • #7
    • 4th Oct 17, 9:05 PM
    • #7
    • 4th Oct 17, 9:05 PM
    Done, thanks for the tip.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Oct 17, 10:10 PM
    • 51,747 Posts
    • 65,385 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 4th Oct 17, 10:10 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Oct 17, 10:10 PM
    What is it i need to do next to make sure i do not loose this court case?
    Have you read the NEWBIES thread post #2, in particular the links about what to do and when, and the links to examples of Witness Statements & what evidence to include?
    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.

    • ndon2017
    • By ndon2017 8th Oct 17, 12:19 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    ndon2017
    • #9
    • 8th Oct 17, 12:19 PM
    • #9
    • 8th Oct 17, 12:19 PM
    I have been speaking to my friend and he has told me a lot of what to do, however, I have to submit all the documents that i will use in court at the end of the month. Not sure exactly what I will need? I have my defence but that is about it.
    • ndon2017
    • By ndon2017 8th Oct 17, 12:19 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    ndon2017
    Is my defence ok?
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 8th Oct 17, 12:36 PM
    • 1,197 Posts
    • 2,373 Thanks
    Lamilad
    I have been speaking to my friend and he has told me a lot of what to do, however, I have to submit all the documents that i will use in court at the end of the month. Not sure exactly what I will need? I have my defence but that is about it.
    Originally posted by ndon2017
    Have you read the NEWBIES thread as advised by CM in post #8?
    • ndon2017
    • By ndon2017 23rd Oct 17, 9:02 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    ndon2017
    I have just read the document, I am feeling more confident now. I have to have all my documents submitted to both parties by 31st October. I hope i win this!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Oct 17, 12:16 AM
    • 51,747 Posts
    • 65,385 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK, please show us your proposed WS, which is not the same thing as your defence (the NEWBIES thread post #2 shows you the difference).
    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.

    • ndon2017
    • By ndon2017 24th Oct 17, 9:09 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    ndon2017
    Claim dropped!
    Received a letter today from Gladstone’s stating they have dropped the claim, I still have one left is it worth contacting them asking to drop both?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Oct 17, 9:21 PM
    • 51,747 Posts
    • 65,385 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Received a letter today from Gladstone’s stating they have dropped the claim, I still have one left is it worth contacting them asking to drop both?
    Originally posted by ndon2017
    I would email them robustly, saying there was clearly no cause of action so why have they not yet discontinued the other similar claim, because you are intent on defending this in court but your costs have already escalated (attach a fairly hefty 3 figure 'costs schedule' - see LoadsofChildren123's version, linked in the NEWBIES thread).
    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.

    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 24th Oct 17, 10:07 PM
    • 613 Posts
    • 1,124 Thanks
    safarmuk
    Received a letter today from Gladstone’s stating they have dropped the claim, I still have one left is it worth contacting them asking to drop both?
    If both claims are for the exact same "infringement" then yes, as above draft out a robust letter, post it here for review and then get it off to GS. You will be saying that if the first case was discontinued the second (identical) case should be as well and that if it is not you will use that as evidence to defend this second claim and if you win claim costs (as C-M above suggests).

    Hopefully this will be enough to head this second claim off, but don't be surprised if it doesn't as often we find GS perhaps do not read the correspondence they are sent.
    • ndon2017
    • By ndon2017 2nd Nov 17, 10:14 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    ndon2017
    I have wrote this:


    To whom it may concern,

    I am writing this letter about claim #####. I received a letter from yourselves on Thursday 26th October 2017 stating you have withdrawn the claim ######. I therefore ask you to discontinue the second claim as it is identical and there is clearly no cause of action so cannot see why you have continued this second claim. Failure to do so will result in me using this as evidence to defend the claim ##### in court and if I win I will be claiming costs.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 2nd Nov 17, 1:13 PM
    • 4,747 Posts
    • 3,089 Thanks
    KeithP
    The word 'if' in there should be 'when'.
    .
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 2nd Nov 17, 1:16 PM
    • 7,415 Posts
    • 6,464 Thanks
    The Deep
    Can you not bung in a counter claim instead? Trespass, stress, quiet enjoyment, invasion of privacy, I would.
    Last edited by The Deep; 02-11-2017 at 1:23 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 2nd Nov 17, 1:46 PM
    • 613 Posts
    • 1,124 Thanks
    safarmuk
    Is there a costs order attached to that showing them how much costs you would intend to claim? If so I would refer to it.

    The poster Jonersh wrote a "drop hands" letter on another thread, if you search for posts by this user you should find it and could tailor it.

    Or you could go "all in" like TD suggests and start counter claiming - more tricky and more work, up to you. But I get the impression this is about making this go away for you as opposed to extracting your pound of flesh.
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

320Posts Today

2,237Users online

Martin's Twitter