Letter before claim

Kind_Of_Irritated

Yes, I have doubts about referencing the Beavis case - mainly because it lost in the end. This seems a good point:

It can be argued by you that, in the absence of a genuine offer and consideration this is merely a penalty dressed up as a contractual 'charge'. At best the parking event was a matter of trespass with zero 'agreement' on any charge because it's so small as to be illegible on the outdoor signs. Also the £100 was not stated in the permit contractual bumf from the landowner's managing agents.

My only worry here is that I have already admitted to Link & Gladstones that I have a permit (not on view on this occasion) which implies that I understood and accepted that a permit was necessary.

Thank you for this too:

Here's a basis of a LBCCC response, written by Mystery1 on Legal Beagles:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?83973-Gladstones-LBA-Letter

Can you glance back at that sign jpg again? The space for the Location Number at the top has not been completed. I suppose that is not essential, is it?

Coupon-mad

I noticed that. It isn't essential, not a feature of most signs.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thank you, coupon-mad, for all of your help here. I have visited and joined up at Legal Beagles following your suggestion:

Here's a basis of a LBCCC response, written by Mystery1 on Legal Beagles:

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?83973-Gladstones-LBA-Letter

I'm still not all that sure that that kind of draft would work for my particular case (though some of it probably does) but I'm going to ask them on there as to what my strongest hand(s) might be.

I am wondering about pressing the Property Management Committee a bit more.

Do you think there is room for me to say in my response that I have made (or will be making) enquiries to the property management committee as I understand that similar "fines" to owners or their visitors have been cancelled when a board member of the management cttee contacted Link Parking?

I actually spoke to that individual the other day and he told me this. He didn't offer to ring them for me in my case and I did not want to pressure him to do so as he is elderly and about to go into hospital for a heart operation.

The Secretary of the Board has been unhelpful on this matter from the start, but my son says he is a rather difficult individual anyway and never all that helpful for residents.

Coupon-mad

Do you think there is room for me to say in my response that I have made (or will be making) enquiries to the property management committee as I understand that similar "fines" to owners or their visitors have been cancelled when a board member of the management cttee contacted Link Parking?

Yes and you could also say that the Government are investigating and planning to regulate this notorious 'private parking industry' again and that Theresa May has already pledged to end some of the worst practices that result in CCJs for innocent motorists and (worse than clamping was) hold their credit to ransom for six years.

Ask them whether the peaceful enjoyment of residents & visitors matters to them at all, if so, why are they allowing people to be threatened with disproportionate action which merely lines the pockets of ex-clamper bullies?

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks again, coupon-mad. You are a gem.:A

I have signed up at Legal Beagles to see what they suggest too.

Can you clarify this for me? I am at the stage of responding to Gladstones' LBC (I said in my formal response to them that I would ensure it would be with them by Thursday 20th Sep). Should I put all of the components of my case into that letter or just hint that there are several areas I will be compiling if they continue to chase this "fine" (idea being that they might just drop this if they think I am likely to be difficult).

Coupon-mad

I would not make the letter too wordy to Gladstones, they will not read it.

Just concentrate on making it look very reasonable because a Judge will see it, so 'write for the Judge' by making your case simply and robustly that the debt and liability is denied (hint at why only) and stating that this appears to be a generic claim with no scrutiny of detail, part of the 'roboclaims' scattergun approach currently adopted by Gladstones who you are aware suffer from an extreme conflict of interests because the firm is run by Directors of the IPC (parking firms Trade Body). Name the Directors.

Because it's in your reply to the LBCCC, that will then have to feature in the evidence in court...

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thank you so much for your guidance, yotmon. I'm trying to narrow it down, but now that I have found this site I realise I made an elementary error in letting both Link & Gladstones know that I was the driver.

yotmon wrote: »

At first it may seem daunting attempting to understand the intricacies of private parking, but once you narrow it down to your situation and concentrate on those points then it should become clearer. There are loads of threads on here covering domestic parking spaces to get your teeth into.

Yes, I have taken a picture of one of the signs. There are three there, and they are prominent. It's a small residential car park facility, with no spaces at all for visitors. I'll put the photo that was very near my car in here, in case you spot something important.

Notice photo:

yotmon wrote: »

Have u obtained photo's of the signs they use at your son's address - have u checked them to see if they comply with the IPC codes of practice. What is the actual wording, how many exist and where are they situated in relation to your son's parking space. As said above, you need to gather evidence to defend this and rubbish their claim. It's not just about the parking pass not being visible, but it is about challenging their authority to carry out these threats.

I haven't checked signs' wording with IPC. Thanks for that suggestion. Will check that out.

Yes, re challenging their claim - I'll try to find some info on the forum as to what I can say or write to the Property's overall Board of Management. My son and I have both already emailed them about this, to no avail. The Secretary has never been helpful to my son (on other matters too).

Another issue is - do I need to have ALL this in hand for my reply to Gladstones? That has to be with them by THIS Thursday [20th Sep].

yotmon wrote: »

Find out what you can say to the Landlords/letting agents as they are part of this and should be made aware that you hold them responsible as principle for the actions of their agents. Use the search buttons, take your time and hopefully you will slowly start to comprehend what's required. Good luck.

Will do. If I write to the Board of Management and ask to see a copy of their agreement with Link Parking, would that be useful?

Thank you so much for your assistance.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thank you again, coupon-mad. I have 4 queries, if you don't mind:

Point 1: So, if you think they will not read it you are saying that Link Parking & Gladstones will have already decided this is going to "court"? If this is the case should I be copying in (emailing, say) my response to Gladstones to both Link Parking and the Property Management Committee, to see if between those two they might decide to stop further pursuit and inform Gladstones before it goes any further?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would not make the letter too wordy to Gladstones, they will not read it.

__________

Point 2: I think it's highly likely that in the absence of anything "illegal" in the notice or in the parking permit I have, then appealing as you have suggested below makes a lot of sense. But how do I "hint" without giving away all my arguments?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Just concentrate on making it look very reasonable because a Judge will see it, so 'write for the Judge' by making your case simply and robustly that the debt and liability is denied (hint at why only) and stating that this appears to be a generic claim with no scrutiny of detail, part of the 'roboclaims' scattergun approach currently adopted by Gladstones who you are aware suffer from an extreme conflict of interests because the firm is run by Directors of the IPC (parking firms Trade Body). Name the Directors.

__________

Point 3. Sorry, I'm not sure which directors you refer to here. Is it Gladstones Directors? At first I thought you meant naming the Management Board Directors and I think that might be a step too far, as my son is very happy living there and I don't want to cause him more trouble. Also I met the Director of the Board the other day, and he seems very pleasant. Although perhaps he could have said he'd ring Link Parking for me, especially since he told me he had rung Link to get a "fine" cancelled (though he also said his family had actually paid some fines to Link.) I cannot get through to Link on the phone and they will not enter into any communication by email. The Board Director chap is about to go into hospital for a heart operation, so on a personal level I don't want to worry him.

On re-reading your reply I think you mean Gladstones directors. Is that correct?
__________

Point 4: Is it worth my saying in my response to Gladstones that I am of a certain age? I hate playing the age card.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks for your reply, The Deep. Very interesting. Sorry I don't understand the acronym "IIMU", though.

It sounds as though I could mention the investigation of Gladstones by the SRA in my response to Gladstones. Does that make sense? Coupon-mad has already told me that Gladstones won't even look at my reply to them but that I should write for the judge.

I wasn't actually in my son's parking space as he was using it and I had only called in for a short time to drop something off. There are no visitors spaces allocated in this small parking lot. I was in the parking space of the Management Board Secretary (an accountancy office) which is often empty, probably so that their customers can park there on business. (I think they have two spaces.)

The_Deep wrote: »

IIMU that Gladstones are being investigated by the SRA because of their links with the IPC/IAS, it may be that they will be barred from acting for their members.

In any case "own space" claims are notoriously difficult for them to win, especially if your son is a leaseholder with possession/sole rights to the parking space.

This is not rocket science, but nor is it colouring by numbers, but if the PPC has no right to issue penalties for your son's space, he will not thank you if you pay the Dane.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Here you are, IamEmanresu. I have only taken a close-up picture of one of the 3 signs, though it looks like they are all the same. I think I'd better take pictures of the other signs, in case there are discrepancies.

Thank you for your assistance here. It is greatly appreciated.

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Could you post up a pic of the wording of the sign(s). Link have issues with a) wording and b) different signs in the same car park.

Would you care to check and post up links to say tinypic.com