Letter before claim

Kind_Of_Irritated

Update: I got the below in response to my email and snail mail letter to Gladstones. I expect they will be issuing a summons, or whatever they call it, as I have not paid a penny, of course.

Good Morning,

I write further to your email on 20.09.2016.

Copies of the original parking charge notice and the landowner agreement will not be made available at this time, they will be presented in our clients witness statement should the case continue to court. The PCN was affixed to windscreen as shown in the attached photographs. The notice to keeper and final demand have previously been sent by our Client.

1. Private
2. A charge was issued to the driver for having the privilege to park on the land without displaying a valid permit.
3. The driver, if this is not you please formally nominate the driver or you will be pursued as the keeper of the vehicle pursuant to schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012.
4. Our Client has followed the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), Schedule 4, Paragraph 4, Sub-Paragraph 1 as the creditor 'has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle'.
5. £100 is the charge, £50 is incurred 28 days after issue as a nominal contribution to our Client's damages i.e the time and resources spent on the case.

Without concession, I am unsure as to what more you require from a letter before claim for a parking charge apart from the date, reason for issue and location.

The balance of £150.00 remains outstanding and is due within 7 days of this email. To make payment you can call our office or visit our website www.gslcollections.com .

Should payment not be received as stated above then a claim will be issued without further notice and you may incur further costs.

We will not litigate through correspondence any further.


Regards,

Emma
Administration Assistant

Gladstones Solicitors Limited

The Terrace
High Legh Park Golf Club
Warrington Road
High Legh
Knutsford
Cheshire
WA16 6AA

w : www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk
t : 01565 755088
f : 01565 652473
e : [EMAIL="emma@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk"]emma@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk[/EMAIL]

Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors' Regulation Authority (number 559050) under the terms of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct which may be viewed at www.sra.org.uk

The content of this email transmission and any documents attached to it are confidential and are intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is subject to legal privilege. If you have received this email in error or are not the named recipient you are expressly forbidden from copying, storing or further distributing the contents of this transmission by any means. Disclosure of the content of this email transmission or its content may amount to contempt of court or a criminal offence. If you have received this e mail transmission in error you are requested to notify the sender and delete the email and its content forthwith.

Gladstones Solicitors Limited do not accept service of documents by email.

Gladstones Solicitors Limited | Registered in England and Wales (7535449)

Directors | John Davies & Will Hurley

ALWAYS BE CYBER SAFE

We will never request you to settle invoices or pay monies to a different account via telephone call or via email.

We will never accept change to your account details via email.

We will always inform you of any changes via post or in person.

If you have suspicions, contact the person with responsibility of your matter.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

Update: I managed to speak to the Secretary of the Management Board at my son's flat today. He offered to write to Link Parking informing them that I am not the sort of driver/visitor they need to stop parking in the parking lot and he is asking them if they will cancel the "charge".

He said he couldn't guarantee that it would make any difference, but I imagine it's worth including this information (about his letter to the solicitors) when I write my full response to Gladstones (to get to them by this Thursday, 20th)?

Since Gladstones have already sent me a "Letter before claim" does anyone know if they are likely to stop the procedure at this stage if Link Parking asks them to?

It must be worth asking for a copy of that letter urgently, for two reasons:

1. Send a copy to Gladstones telling them it proves there is no 'legitimate interest' in this case. The intentions of the Management Board are not to penalise residents or their legitimate visitors.

2. To use a copy in your eventual court defence.

I would always reply to Gladstones rubbish, don't let it lie:

1. ''Private'' - no, it is relevant information to ensure the overriding objective, that all parties are on an equal footing with full information and in order to attempt to resolve the dispute.
2. ''A charge was issued to the driver for having the privilege to park on the land without displaying a valid permit.'' No such privilege or licence is 'offered' by the signs which are prohibitive, offering the consideration of a parking space only to drivers of cars displaying a permit. This is a matter for the landholder and they (the Management Board) have stated to Link that the charge is to be cancelled. Further, any contract relating to the permit scheme was concluded when the permits were offered and accepted/signed for, with paperwork which was silent about any 'charge' and silent about any signs adding to the terms. Link Parking cannot 're-offer' parking to residents/permit-holders as if a new contract arises every single day by performance. They cannot try to 'bolt on' random new terms and an unrecoverable penalty charge onto the licence already granted by the Management Board and accepted by residents and concluded upon the action of receiving the permit. The signs can only relate to other drivers (such as random people popping to the shops) but are not and never were part of the permit contract. Regular, permitted visitors cannot be expected to read the signs each and every day to check nothing has changed regarding terms which were never incorporated into the contract in the first place, when the permits were supplied.
3. ''The driver, if this is not you please formally nominate the driver or you will be pursued as the keeper of the vehicle pursuant to schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012.'' A keeper can only be held liable if there was a 'relevant contract' and 'relevant obligation' which are both denied. Keeper liability would also require full compliance with the deadlines and mandatory wording of Schedule 4, as far as any Notice to Keeper is concerned and yet Gladstones has refused to provide a copy of that purported document. And it would require 'adequate notice of the parking charge' which (since the signs did not create the contract because it already existed) was NOT a feature of the permit information handed over to the residents. A resident has confirmed that he will provide evidence and a witness statement to this effect, should a defence to a court claim be required.
4. ''Our Client has followed the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), Schedule 4, Paragraph 4, Sub-Paragraph 1 as the creditor 'has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle'.'' Your client needs to read the rest of Schedule 4 because that right does not exist in this case (see answer to point #3).
5. ''£100 is the charge, £50 is incurred 28 days after issue as a nominal contribution to our Client's damages i.e the time and resources spent on the case.'' Your client needs to read the rest of Schedule 4 because the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information, mentioned £50.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thank you so much for this Coupon-mad. I will ask the Secretary of the Management Board to let me have a copy of his letter to Link Parking. I have an odd feeling he will say it has been deleted from his records, but we'll see.

Do you think I should send your points 1-4 to Gladstones at this stage even if I don't have a copy of the Management Secretary's letter? I will ignore Gladstones' "We will not litigate through correspondence any further."

I would always reply to Gladstones rubbish, don't let it lie:

1. ''Private'' - no, it is relevant information to ensure the overriding objective, that all parties are on an equal footing with full information and in order to attempt to resolve the dispute.
2. ''A charge was issued to the driver for having the privilege to park on the land without displaying a valid permit.'' No such privilege or licence is 'offered' by the signs which are prohibitive, offering the consideration of a parking space only to drivers of cars displaying a permit. This is a matter for the landholder and they (the Management Board) have stated to Link that the charge is to be cancelled. Further, any contract relating to the permit scheme was concluded when the permits were offered and accepted/signed for, with paperwork which was silent about any 'charge' and silent about any signs adding to the terms. Link Parking cannot 're-offer' parking to residents/permit-holders as if a new contract arises every single day by performance. They cannot try to 'bolt on' random new terms and an unrecoverable penalty charge onto the licence already granted by the Management Board and accepted by residents and concluded upon the action of receiving the permit. The signs can only relate to other drivers (such as random people popping to the shops) but are not and never were part of the permit contract. Regular, permitted visitors cannot be expected to read the signs each and every day to check nothing has changed regarding terms which were never incorporated into the contract in the first place, when the permits were supplied.
3. ''The driver, if this is not you please formally nominate the driver or you will be pursued as the keeper of the vehicle pursuant to schedule 4 of the protection of freedoms act 2012.'' A keeper can only be held liable if there was a 'relevant contract' and 'relevant obligation' which are both denied. Keeper liability would also require full compliance with the deadlines and mandatory wording of Schedule 4, as far as any Notice to Keeper is concerned and yet Gladstones has refused to provide a copy of that purported document. And it would require 'adequate notice of the parking charge' which (since the signs did not create the contract because it already existed) was NOT a feature of the permit information handed over to the residents. A resident has confirmed that he will provide evidence and a witness statement to this effect, should a defence to a court claim be required.
4. ''Our Client has followed the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012), Schedule 4, Paragraph 4, Sub-Paragraph 1 as the creditor 'has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle'.'' Your client needs to read the rest of Schedule 4 because that right does not exist in this case (see answer to point #3).
5. ''£100 is the charge, £50 is incurred 28 days after issue as a nominal contribution to our Client's damages i.e the time and resources spent on the case.'' Your client needs to read the rest of Schedule 4 because the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information, mentioned £50.

Coupon-mad

Do you think I should send your points 1-4 to Gladstones at this stage even if I don't have a copy of the Management Secretary's letter? I will ignore Gladstones' "We will not litigate through correspondence any further."

Yes, bother them with replies every time. You are perfectly entitled to engage in correspondence in an honest attempt to make them see sense and avoid ill-advised and vexatious litigation.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Will do. Will also try to get a copy of the letter the Board Secretary sent them. Thank you so much for your valued advice, Coupon-mad.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Hi again Coupon-mad.

I have a draft email almost ready to send to Gladstones including the points above, but I'm not sure about the wording of the below, as you recommended:

In 3) - A resident has confirmed that he will provide evidence and a witness statement to this effect, should a defence to a court claim be required.

So far the "resident" in question (did you mean the Sec of the Management Board, or my son - neither of them saw this charge being placed on the car?) haven't said they will provide evidence and/or a witness statement. Though, of course, my son will produce his emails to the Management Board and to Link Parking.

In 5) - They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information, mentioned £50.

The £100 was mentioned on the signs and on the NTK, but not on the permit itself.

I have yet to have sight of the Landlord/Tenant arrangement re parking and how this impacts on residents and guests liability. But I was told by the Board Secretary that there would have been no mention of the Link Parking arrangements in it.

Coupon-mad

I meant your son, I was sure he'd agree to be a witness NOT to the parking event (irrelevant in the scheme of things) but a witness to the best of his recollection, or evidence, of what information was provided to him with the permit (i.e. nothing about any signage terms being incorporated into the contract/having to be read as well, and nothing about the £100 sum of the parking charge itself).

No mention of a charge in the contract = it can't be added later. An agreement was concluded between the resident (on behalf of visitors using those permits) and the Management Board, well before Link Parking stuck some signs up which can't alter the already agreed permit terms.

And you are making the clear point that the contract is NOT made on a day-to-day basis by the performance of parking, not in the case of residents' permit schemes already concluded/agreed. The only 'relevant contract' was concluded upon the offer and acceptance of permits with only those terms at that date applying, unless the bumf mentioned the signs had to be read as part of the agreement too AND brought the £100 to residents' attention prominently and transparently as part of the agreement.

The £100 was mentioned on the signs and on the NTK, but not on the permit itself.

Yep that's normal, but the point here is that the £50 was absolutely nowhere so it can't be randomly bolted on later. And the £100 was almost certainly not in the permit agreement when your son accepted those terms. You need to steer this well away from signage if the Judge will understand that the contract was formed earlier, with no onerous 'charge' terms, as witnessed by your son.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks again, Coupon-mad. Your help is invaluable here.

Re:

You need to steer this well away from signage if the Judge will understand that the contract was formed earlier, with no onerous 'charge' terms, as witnessed by your son.

Do you mean it is better not to mention the signage and instead depend on the "contract" or lack of?

Also, update on the Letter as sent to Link Parking from Management Board Sec. I have just asked for, and have received a copy of the letter sent to LP a couple of weeks ago, (personal and/or identifiable details omitted below):

__________

It has been brought to our attention that a Parking Charge Notice was served on ....... in May of this year.

We have been informed the vehicle belongs to ........ mother of ......... In turn, he is the resident at ............ and brought this matter to our attention in July.

Today, ........... has called to see us to explain she was visiting her son for just a brief period, and that her parking permit had slipped out of view from her dashboard.

Clearly, we cannot arbitrate in this matter. This letter is simply to point out that .............. was parked here by a close relative of one of the residents at ...........

Yours faithfully
_______________________

Coupon-mad

That letter did not help did it? They've not bothered to even ask for the charge to be cancelled, nor even intimate they think it should be - and they even suggested who parked!

You must mention the signs and how unclear they are, in case the Judge waves away the notion that a parking contract was concluded before Link were on the scene. A Judge might decide that as you were a visitor, the signs bind you day-to-day (the opposite of how we suggest this should be steered) so you need to have a Plan B = the illegibility of the terms and lack of offer/consideration = no contract.

Has your son got anything in his lease as well to include, which supersedes the terms, like in Laura Jopson's case (we do not have the case number but you could try ringing the Solicitors who represented her pro bono, and ask if they will release the claim number please):

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

If you don't ask you don't get - a claim number is basic information and they might be OK to tell you...

Kind_Of_Irritated

No, the letter, as we suspected, was hardly supportive. Otoh, it exists and they have at least done their (small) part.

As far as suggesting who parked, well, in my ignorance I already admitted that at the beginning when I first contacted Link Parking.

It's arguable whether the signs are visually unclear, if that's what you mean here -

You must mention the signs and how unclear they are, in case the Judge waves away the notion that a parking contract was concluded before Link were on the scene. A Judge might decide that as you were a visitor, the signs bind you day-to-day (the opposite of how we suggest this should be steered) so you need to have a Plan B = the illegibility of the terms and lack of offer/consideration = no contract.

Re this:

Has your son got anything in his lease as well to include,

He may well have but he has been working abroad for the last several weeks and I haven't seen the lease yet.

Re contacting that other case's law firm, I might well give it a try.

Since the 7 days mentioned in Gladstones' latest communication to me is up I am fully expecting them to issue a court summons soon. So I suppose the more I can confound them and Link with multi-defence/attack weaponry the better, presumably.

I noted reference to Gladstones and the IPC being one and the same - "incestuous". I never appealed to their IPC at the start, if I recall correctly because I had seen this dual identity mentioned. Would this failure to appeal to their IPC strengthen or weaken my hand?

Thank you.