Claim form- PCM & Gladstones

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

I wonder what happened to the grace periods that the IPC put in there code code of conduct , that state :




15. Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so
they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or
permitted period of parking has expired.


as gladstones are the owners of the IPC , they KNOW that a grace period upon entering the site must be allowed , however with their solisitors hat on , they are forgetting this


perhaps they need reminding that you will bring a copy of the code of conduct that THEY wrote , to the court?

Pappa, doubt Gladstones remember what they say from one day to the next. The courts must be scratching their heads wondering why the SRA even let them in. Real solicitors must cringe when they hear about Gladstones.

Will Hurley and John Davies might think they know what they are doing to the exclusion of everybody else including the courts

pappa_golf

facts is facts OP states :


i was helping my brother move into his new flat in london.
i followed and parked up behind the movie van outside his flat.
just after i pulled in (it did say "loading bay") the PCM operator started taking photos of my car. i came out, tried to ask if it was ok to park here. (got no response),
read the sign on the wall and promptly moved."




however PCM are signed up with the IPC , and have to abide with the code of conduct , that states: 15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so
they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.




so will the IPC issue PCM with sanction points , pigs fly or gladstones make a *ollock* of a court case and cost PCM many hundreds of £


answers on the back of a aldi apology letter please ,,,

beamerguy

pappa_golf wrote: »

so will the IPC issue PCM with sanction points , pigs fly or gladstones make a *ollock* of a court case and cost PCM many hundreds of £


answers on the back of a aldi apology letter please ,,,

It's just the Gladstones family of scammers

hoohoo

Your defence should be
1) No contract by performance - tine is required to read the signs which you did and then left
2) No contract as no offer of parking. The signage is forbidding. This can only be a case of trespass, not breach of contract
3) The signage does not meet consumer requirements for distance contracts and so as per 13(1) of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014, any contract is non binding
4) The charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair contact ter. ParkingEye v beavis is the authority on this and makes it plain that the consumer must have time to read the contract and the penalty should be claear and not hidden in small print.


Part 18s to gladstones are a waste of time and are always ignored. Only do one if you are prepared to file a complant to the SRA when they do not reply

pappa_golf

well , nail them to there so called "code of contract" , if a judge kicks it out , then they are obliged to sanction PCM , nowhere in the manual does it state that this info is not available to the public!


but after gladstones fleece the PPC and cost them £500 , then another one will retract back in his shell

spaceman8

Ralph-y wrote: »

"i was helping my brother move into his new flat in london.
i followed and parked up behind the movie van outside his flat.
just after i pulled in (it did say "loading bay") the PCM operator started taking photos of my car. i came out, tried to ask if it was ok to park here. (got no response),
read the sign on the wall and promptly moved."

just a few thoughts ......

should there not be something re 'mitigation of losses' ?

and ...

there was a court case recently re parking in front of flats to load / unload .... just searched bur can not find it ..........

sorry in a tinny rush .... wife is calling to lift the suitcases down


off to the US of A tomorrow :dance:

good luck

Ralph:cool:

hi

thanks pal, ill look into this. have a good holiday

spaceman8

pappa_golf wrote: »

I wonder what happened to the grace periods that the IPC put in there code code of conduct , that state :




15. Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so
they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.
15.2 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to leave a site after a pre-paid or
permitted period of parking has expired.


as gladstones are the owners of the IPC , they KNOW that a grace period upon entering the site must be allowed , however with their solisitors hat on , they are forgetting this


perhaps they need reminding that you will bring a copy of the code of conduct that THEY wrote , to the court?

I was thinking exactly the same. I've got these points in my defence. i don't know if i should hint at the IPC or if if i should ad everything into the defence i need to submit. 4/5 pics they took show me still in the car with my lights still on!.

Redx

its here , Laura Jopson

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

pappa_golf

the company that are representing the PPC (gladstones) started and active run the IPC , so why would a solicitor withhold this information , this is a case for the SRA , as you are being disadvantaged

spaceman8

hoohoo wrote: »

Your defence should be
1) No contract by performance - tine is required to read the signs which you did and then left
2) No contract as no offer of parking. The signage is forbidding. This can only be a case of trespass, not breach of contract
3) The signage does not meet consumer requirements for distance contracts and so as per 13(1) of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014, any contract is non binding
4) The charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair contact ter. ParkingEye v beavis is the authority on this and makes it plain that the consumer must have time to read the contract and the penalty should be claear and not hidden in small print.


Part 18s to gladstones are a waste of time and are always ignored. Only do one if you are prepared to file a complant to the SRA when they do not reply

i can put photo up of sign and any of the photos they've provided, i just cut them out of the bull response they put forward in the equally bull IAS appeals. the thing about £100 is so ridiculously small.