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
    • J88rdy
    • By J88rdy 10th Oct 17, 8:54 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 0Thanks
    J88rdy
    Gladstones uk car park management ltd defence stage.
    • #1
    • 10th Oct 17, 8:54 PM
    Gladstones uk car park management ltd defence stage. 10th Oct 17 at 8:54 PM
    Evening all, last summer my vehicle was parked on a local pub car park, which has been used by locals for years to pop to the shops etc, with seemingly no issue. 1 day they unbeknown to me started issuing tickets and my car happened to receive one.

    Now foolishly I ignored all correspondence . I know now that's silly and will learn from that. Anyway I've now had a claim form for 248 quid which I have acknowledged and intend to fight.

    My argument is based on appalling signage and the wording of the sign being very contradicting . Any advice will be greatly appreciated .

    I will link to my drop box soon for image of sign. ww.dropbox.com/sc/sntc8xwax4qzhmh/AACeUpe5zT1xguzxKCY0weJKa
    Last edited by J88rdy; 10-10-2017 at 9:19 PM. Reason: Added link to images
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Oct 17, 8:57 PM
    • 16,116 Posts
    • 20,194 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 10th Oct 17, 8:57 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Oct 17, 8:57 PM
    as you have an MCOL, please read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, near the top of this forum

    then draft your defence and post it on here for critique, based on similar defeances from THIS YEAR ONLY already posted on here by other members

    there are plenty of UKCPM GLADSTONES threads you can look at for guidance, it crops up almost every day
    Last edited by Redx; 12-10-2017 at 7:58 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • J88rdy
    • By J88rdy 10th Oct 17, 9:21 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    J88rdy
    • #3
    • 10th Oct 17, 9:21 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Oct 17, 9:21 PM
    Ok thanks will look now. Wouldn't allow me to add a link so I took away a w from the www. If anyone is interested in seeing the sign. Cheers.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 10th Oct 17, 9:25 PM
    • 1,056 Posts
    • 2,109 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #4
    • 10th Oct 17, 9:25 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Oct 17, 9:25 PM
    ww.dropbox.com/sc/sntc8xwax4qzhmh/AACeUpe5zT1xguzxKCY0weJKa
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 10th Oct 17, 9:37 PM
    • 582 Posts
    • 705 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #5
    • 10th Oct 17, 9:37 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Oct 17, 9:37 PM
    www.dropbox.com/sc/sntc8xwax4qzhmh/AACeUpe5zT1xguzxKCY0weJKa
    Try that, should work
    • J88rdy
    • By J88rdy 12th Oct 17, 6:39 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    J88rdy
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 6:39 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Oct 17, 6:39 PM
    Hi all just a quick one, researching for my defence and I saw someone had submitted a lite version of a defence based on a lack of particulars from gladstones, the court agreed and requested more from gladstones who missed the deadline and the case was thrown out. Is this something I could consider ?

    Thanks.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 17, 6:44 PM
    • 16,116 Posts
    • 20,194 Thanks
    Redx
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 6:44 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Oct 17, 6:44 PM
    definitely, use any and all available ammo
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • J88rdy
    • By J88rdy 12th Oct 17, 7:37 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    J88rdy
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:37 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:37 PM
    The POC in my claim are as follows.

    The driver of vehicle registration xxxxx incurred the parking charge on (date) ,for breaching the terms of parking on the land (address)
    The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper,
    And the claimant claims 160 for parking charges /damages etc etc

    Is this a lack of POC ? Also if I went down that road and the court didn't agree with me then would the lite defence I send in be taken as my whole defence and thus shooting mYself in the foot?

    Cheers.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Oct 17, 7:50 PM
    • 3,991 Posts
    • 2,257 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:50 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:50 PM
    ... if I went down that road and the court didn't agree with me then would the lite defence I send in be taken as my whole defence and thus shooting mYself in the foot?
    Originally posted by J88rdy
    Yes it would.
    .
    • J88rdy
    • By J88rdy 12th Oct 17, 7:57 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    J88rdy
    Thought so, would you say there is enough in the POC then so I couldn't claim I don't know exactly what I'm supposed to be defending .
    • Redx
    • By Redx 12th Oct 17, 7:59 PM
    • 16,116 Posts
    • 20,194 Thanks
    Redx
    the POC is usually atrocious so as I said earlier, find a recently approved defence and adapt it and post it for critique

    at the moment only you can see what your defence says , so post it

    then it can be fine tuned

    see todays claxtome thread so see ones that win
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • J88rdy
    • By J88rdy 17th Oct 17, 6:31 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    J88rdy
    ok as suggested ive adapted a defence and drafted it up. here is a first draft. any advice greatly appreciated.




    • In the County Court
      Claim Number:
      Between
      xxxx (Claimant)
      and
      xxxx (Defendant)


      Defence Statement


      Preliminary Matters.

      1. 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). 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
      1.1 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.

    • 2.The Defendant researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. This research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. These findings indicate a conflict of interest. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

      3. 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. Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service have identified over one thousand similar poorly produced claims and the solicitors conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

      4. The Defendant believes the terms 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. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to their significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

      5. The Defendant respectfully suggests 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.

      6. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

      7. The Defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4 and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
      1.4


      On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
      cause of action.



      Statement of Defence

      I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
      authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
      incident.The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

      1. The claimant has not provided enough details in the Particular of Claim to file a full
      defence.
      a) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
      b) The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge. Except for a ‘breach of contract’.
      c) There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
      was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
      exchange of information.
      d) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
      charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
      Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being
      incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could
      give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
      e) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
      similar parking charge particulars of claim were eficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
      and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
      particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
      struck out.

      The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and
      asks leave to amend the Defence.

      2. The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
      a) No initial information was sent to the Defendant for the following
      (i) Full particulars of the parking charges.
      (ii) Who the party was that are contracted with UKCPM LTD
      (iii) The full legal identity of the landowner
      (iv) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UKCPM had their authority.
      (v) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum
      (vi) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
      (vii) To provide a copy of the signs that UKCPM can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all Photographs taken of the vehicle in question.
      b) I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
      that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-
      action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their
      own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.


      3. I have the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
      a) The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
      landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
      b) The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
      vehicle parking at the location in question
      c) The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
      agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

      4. No planning permission for signage
      a) The Claimant is not entitled to rely on an illegal or immoral act in order to profit from it, pursuant to the doctrine ex dolo malo non oritur actio. In this matter, the Claimant does not have planning/advertisement consent in relation to its parking signage on the land in question (which are classed as “advertisements” under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). This is a criminal offence under Regulation 30 of those Regulations. Accordingly, as a matter of public policy the principle ex dolo malo non oritur action should apply – namely, the Claimant should not be allowed to found a cause of action on an immoral or an illegal act (in this case the unlawful signage). The rationale for this is set out in the case of Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341 and was reaffirmed in RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015). The Defendant also relies on Andre Agassi v S Robinson (HM Inspector of Taxes) [2005] EWCA Civ 1507.
      b) In addition to the criminal offence committed by the Claimant, it is in breach of various statutory and regulatory provisions set out in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (Regulation 3 – a breach of which is an offence under Regulation 5), the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sections 62 and 68 and Schedule 2) and the Consumer Contract (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (Regulation 13). Again, the court should not lend its aid to the Claimant in founding a claim based on its unlawful and/or immoral conduct.
      c) Furthermore, it must be contrary to public policy for a court to enforce a contract whereby a party will profit from its criminal conduct and the Defendant will rely on ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338

      5. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist even if it did have planning permission
      a) No sign upon entry to carpark, contravening requirement 18.2 of the BPA code of practice
      b) Wording of signage unclear and contradicting.ie tells you you’re not allowed to park without a permit, but gives no information of how or where to obtain one. Then goes to say if you do park you agree to their terms and risk a £100 charge, as such offering you a contract for something they’re strictly forbidding in the first place.
      c) It is possible to drive into the carpark and park without seeing a sign at all due to the lack of signs and carpark layout, therefore in this instance it is imperative an entrance sign is in place to avoid any confusion.
    Data Protection Act breach
    For the reasons set out above, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper’s details from the DVLA and to use them, and has breached the Defendant’s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing both. Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) is authority that misuse of personal data is a tort. Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 is authority that a reasonable sum of compensation would be £750. The Defendant reserves his rights in respect of these matters.

    I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.
    • J88rdy
    • By J88rdy 18th Oct 17, 5:48 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    J88rdy
    Did anyone manage to look over this ^^^ . I'd like to get this done ASAP as I have so much going on and it's playing on my mind at the moment. Cheers.
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