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
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 6th Dec 17, 3:04 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 1Thanks
    itsmepip
    PCM Parking fine - Heath Parade NW9 - CCJ stage
    • #1
    • 6th Dec 17, 3:04 PM
    PCM Parking fine - Heath Parade NW9 - CCJ stage 6th Dec 17 at 3:04 PM
    Warm hello to the good people on this thread. I am facing an odd situation with PCM and Gladstones. I only recently came to be aware of a CCJ outstanding against me while running a credit check on myself. Investigating further, I found that the CCJ relates to a PCN that PCM UK Ltd had issued way back in Nov 2016 for allegedly parking in a restricted area (at the layby near Sainsbury's on Heath Parade Colindale).
    I do not have any copy of the original PCN or the CCJ as it was all sent to my old address. However I could retrieve photos from the PCM website showing the car in the layby for 4 minutes with the lights on. Clearly someone photographed the vehicle and sent a PCN.
    The PCN and the CCJ were all addressed to my old address and hence I could not respond to anything. Neither did I know of their existence until I ran a credit check on myself.
    I researched the internet and found helpful threads on Parking Prankster's blog and several cases on MSE.
    I genuinely believe I've fallen prey to PCM UK and Gladstone's swindling scheme. This is absolutely outrageous and unfair.
    I have decided to appeal the CCJ to be set aside on the basis that the PCN claim is bogus.
    I found out the PCN number by calling PCM UK with the CCJ number (from my credit report).

    I have also read through the #newbies thread, most of the options are not available as this is already in CCJ stage.

    I understand I need to fill out form N244 to have the judgement set aside.

    Any thoughts would be much appreciated on how to refine the witness statement.- if anyone is kind enough to offer check and challenge, I will post the witness statement here.
    Last edited by itsmepip; 06-12-2017 at 3:49 PM.
Page 1
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 6th Dec 17, 3:12 PM
    • 33,600 Posts
    • 17,484 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #2
    • 6th Dec 17, 3:12 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Dec 17, 3:12 PM
    Search for set aside in this forum - lots of threads!


    Put your set aside case up here for comment when ready


    Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving. You need to edit those details given in your post
    • Bemused14
    • By Bemused14 6th Dec 17, 3:34 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Bemused14
    • #3
    • 6th Dec 17, 3:34 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Dec 17, 3:34 PM
    Beware Gladstones spies are also reading the thread!
    If possible quickly amend your post and delete the identification details.
    You will get through it
    Best of luck
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 6th Dec 17, 4:32 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    itsmepip
    • #4
    • 6th Dec 17, 4:32 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Dec 17, 4:32 PM
    Thank you both Bemused14 and Quentin - will post draft soon
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 6th Dec 17, 8:21 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    itsmepip
    • #5
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:21 PM
    • #5
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:21 PM
    So, here's my understanding of next steps:-
    1) Fill N244
    2) Pay GBP 255 fee (I will call the county court asking how to pay this as I don't have a cheque book at hand !)
    3) Send 2 copies of application (N244) and statements to the court, plus any evidence photos etc.

    I WOULD BE EXTREMELY GRATEFUL IF ANYONE ON THIS FORUM CAN PROVIDE CHECK AND CHALLENGE AND THOUGHTS ON WHETHER THE BELOW REASONING WILL STAND IN COURT FOR THE CCJ TO BE SET ASIDE. I KNOW NO ONE WANTS TO READ ABOUT CCJs DURING CHRISTMAS...

    Health Warning - it is a long post...

    I am [xxx] of [Address] and I am the Defendant in this matter.
    This Statement is in support of my application dated xxx for the following -
    • Order for the original claim [xxx] to be dismissed on the basis of having no merit.
    • Set aside the Default Judgement dated [xxx] as it relates to a claim that has no merit and was not served at the correct address.

    1. Order dismissing the Claim

    1.1. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist. I believe the original Claim has no merit and should be dismissed and I also assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
    1.2. The site appears to be a layby and part of the public highway and there is no information close enough to be read by an approaching driver to suggest it is private land or otherwise restricted. Neither there are any physical barriers preventing public vehicle access.
    1.3. I was, at the relevant date, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. On the material date, the vehicle is shown as stopped for a very brief period of time (4 minutes 13 seconds) with the ignition lights on for most part. I attach photographs obtained from the Claimant’s website to support this. There is no nearby signage prohibiting a driver from entering the area. It is clear that the signs are so high and the writing so small it cannot be read from a vehicle or even by a pedestrian until right by the sign. I also attach photographs of the signage taken by me. I believe a parking warden manually took photographs of the vehicle at the layby on the relevant date. If the parking company genuinely wished to prevent parking, the warden could remain on site and politely ask drivers to leave immediately. They would also use large signs which can be seen from inside vehicles from the driver’s seat.
    1.4. The Claimant’s signage with the largest font at this site states “No Customer Parking at Any Time”. A further sign with much smaller writing and higher up states “The loading bay is only for authorised vehicles actively loading & unloading when delivering to the commercial tenants of Heath parade”. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal, the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.
    1.5. The above point was tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that: “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this 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.”
    1.6. While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive. A full transcript of the Approved Judgment for the above case can be provided in the event that this case proceeds to a hearing.
    1.7. In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretations the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply.
    1.8. In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the ‘contravention’ according to the Claimant is already committed.
    1.9. The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up.
    1.10. In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but as PCM UK were the claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8.
    1.11. The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
    1.12. Thus, the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.
    1.13. Additionally, the contract fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts. The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed.
    The regulations define an on-premises contract as: “on-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract; Thus, a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract. The regulations define a distance contract as: “distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;
    • This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking)
    • The contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer.
    • There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.
    This is therefore a distance contract. None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to conclude the contract. Any contract would be concluded by parking and walking away. Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2. As per 13(1) the contract is therefore not binding. Alternatively if the contract is on or off-premises, the information rules still apply and the contract is not binding as per either 9(1) or 10(1).
    1.14. Additionally, the charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumer charge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying £100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay £100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
    1.15. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
    1.16. In addition to the £100 ‘parking charge’, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £50 which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.
    1.17. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
    1.18. The Court is thus invited to dismiss this Claim.


    2. Default Judgement

    2.1. The court is invited to set aside the Default Judgement passed against me the Defendant on the basis that the original Claim has no merit. Additionally, due to the following reasons, I believe the Default Judgement should be set aside.
    2.2. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in May 2016. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until October 2017 when I was doing a routine check on my credit file. I understand that this Claim was served at an old address (). However, I moved to a new address in May 2016. In support of this I can provide confirmation from XXXX Council showing my updated details for the purposes of paying Council tax.
    2.3. I have also never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to challenge the Claimant’s claim and the Default Judgement.
    2.4. On the xx October 2017 I contacted Northampton County Court over telephone to find out details of the Default Judgement. I was informed that the Default Judgement was for an alleged parking violation and the Claimant’s solicitors are Gladstone (working on behalf of Parking Control Management (PCM) UK Limited).
    2.5. I then contacted PCM over telephone explaining the situation and I was provided the PCN number and directed to the PCM website to view evidence in the form of photographs.
    2.6. I have also never received any further documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to properly challenge the Claimant’s claim and to resolve this matter through industrial arbitration to which the Claimant subscribes.
    2.7. I attempted to contact the Claimant’s solicitors (Gladstone) using information given to me by Northampton County Court. I was not able to get through to a member of the staff to discuss, nor have I received a response to my numerous answer phone messages left on the Claimant’s legal department answer-phone or website.
    2.8. Additionally, I wrote to the Claimant’s solicitors Gladstone to gain further information on the Default Judgement and the Claim two times on the xxx and on the xxx by Royal Mail special delivery. I am attaching proof of postage, proof of receipt as evidence. I have not received any responses from Gladstone till date.
    2.9. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s current and correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results in an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.
    2.10. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim.
    2.11. Considering the above I was unable to defend the Claim properly. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and should be set aside.

    Statement of Truth:
    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

    Many Thanks in advance...
    • AcStar
    • By AcStar 6th Dec 17, 8:23 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AcStar
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:23 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:23 PM
    pretty sure same thing happened to me about 3 months ago. they wrote to a family member not to me and the ticket was disqualified. Did not even recall being there and found it hard to find on google maps. contest this it is def a scam!
    • AcStar
    • By AcStar 6th Dec 17, 8:30 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    AcStar
    • #7
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:30 PM
    website about this scam
    • #7
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:30 PM
    check this out
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 6th Dec 17, 8:46 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    itsmepip
    • #8
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:46 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:46 PM
    AcStar: exactly ! And glad to hear you succeeded..I’ve drafted the statement based on info from Parking Prankster and several other victims on this Forum. Hopefully the statement of strong enough to hold in court and hoping someone can give me a heads up about any loopholes in the stmt.
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 7th Dec 17, 1:21 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    itsmepip
    • #9
    • 7th Dec 17, 1:21 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Dec 17, 1:21 PM
    Admin Question to anyone who can help - apologies if it is a stupid one.

    On the N244 form, should I tick Witness statement or statement of case ? The template I used is for a witness statement. I am also planning to send proof of address and the evidence information downloaded from parking company website with the N244 form. Does that make the draft a witness statement or a statement of case?
    I have searched the forum and it is not immediately clear to me..
    I called the CCBC who mentioned that I should tick statement of case.
    They also mentioned that I don't have to fill in sections 7 , 8, 9 which is helpful as I don't have any information for 9 - no letters etc.
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 7th Dec 17, 1:41 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    itsmepip
    Any help from anyone would be much appreciated - I'm targeting to send out the N244 by registered post by Monday (11th)
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 7th Dec 17, 2:16 PM
    • 33,600 Posts
    • 17,484 Thanks
    Quentin
    Yes you tick statement of case
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 15th Dec 17, 11:46 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    itsmepip
    Goodmorning good people and hope everyone is already geared up for the holidays !
    So, there's the thing. Got a letter from CCBC saying that we will be notified of a date for the hearing.
    Does that mean a district judge has already had a look at the application and that we will get a Directions Questionnaire soon ?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 15th Dec 17, 11:49 AM
    • 33,600 Posts
    • 17,484 Thanks
    Quentin
    It means that the claimant has decided to proceed after seeing your defence.

    DQ will come prior to the Court date
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 15th Dec 17, 12:33 PM
    • 1,185 Posts
    • 1,226 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Read post 2 of the newbies, and read it again.
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 15th Dec 17, 2:07 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    itsmepip
    thanks for the index - [loadsofchilren123's detail post]- slipped my mind,,
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

3,134Posts Today

5,641Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • Follow Martin