Claim form- PCM & Gladstones

Coupon-mad

That sign is unreadable and not even clearly about parking at all, seeing as it's about 10 feet up, above a door and pavement and not on the driver's side. Could not possibly be read when driving in there, let alone making out the £100 'charge' and agreeing to it.

See the links in this template appeal point about signage legibility (I realise yours is not at appeal stage but the information in the links about distance and font size is equally valid for defences):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71285691#Comment_71285691

Also I can't recall if we've shown you this case:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

Prohibitive signs which disallow parking without a permit make no 'offer' and form no contract.

beamerguy

If Gladstones really think they can win on those tiny signs and the writing, where they are placed, they are living in cloud 9

PCM -- HOPE YOU READ THIS FORUM

IT'S A NO BRAINER FOR THE COURTS. YOU WILL LOSE

You will also be awarded costs against you

You will be GLADSTONED and have to pay them more than it's worth.

LINK PARKING WERE GLADSTONED
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/link-parkingyouve-been-gladstoned.html

On par with Gladstones are BWLegal

Excel Parking get Gladstoned...by BW Legal. Peel Centre machine failure means no liability

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/excel-parking-get-gladstonedby-bw-legal.html

WILL PCM BE THE NEXT TO BE GLADSTONED ??

spaceman8

Hi

I've sort of got my defence ready. What do think. I've copied and pasted someone else's defence but it mostly loomed really relevant. Any input would be great and much appreciated.


Please note, a part 18 request has been made however no response has been received and therefore I am unable to properly defend against claims to which clarification is required.

!

I XXXXX XXXX as the Defendant deny any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons:

!

1) Wording on the sign is so little that it cannot be read from inside the vehicle. A driver cannot possibly know that stopping is forbidden unless he stops(!), exits the vehicle and uses a ladder. This explicitly violates the IPC code of conduct (the governing body the claimant, PCM are signed up to).

!

IPC code of conduct:

!!!!!!!! Part E- Schedule 1 (p24)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “be clearly legible and placed in such a position such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site"

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “contain text appropriate to the position of the sign and the relative position of the person who it is aimed at”

!

2) The wording regarding a £100 charge is even smaller as to be unreadable from almost any distance. The font used is not clear and easy to read. Its not legible from the car. This again goes against the IPC code of conduct

!

3) A driver must be allowed sufficient time to read the signs (which means exiting the vehicle), understand them, and decide whether to accept the terms. If sufficient time is not allowed to read and understand the signs then no contract is entered into. The operator's own photographs show an elapsed period of just 2 minutes and 14 seconds between the first and the last.

!

4) Furthermore, photographs provided by the operator will clearly show the lack of any attempt to provide any grace period whatsoever. The! pictures show the engine still running as the headlights and breaking lights are so visible. This again goes against the IPC code of conduct:

!

Part B- operational requirements applicable to all operators

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15.Grace periods

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

!

The Operator was not interested in giving any sort of grace period as they starting photographing immediately as the driver had pulled into the bay, let alone get out and read the sign! No contract can formed as it requires the individual to be able to read the terms of contract and decide if he/she wish to agree to them. As no grace period was given, there can therefore be no contract

5. The operator's photographs show how close the photographers were to the vehicle occupants. Why did they not simply direct the driver to move on? The driver did try to speak to the operator, but was ignored. An attempt was made to ask if it suitable to park here for the purposes of unloading into the flats outside of which the car was. Clearly this is not a genuine attempt to prevent or deter a breach of contract but is entrapment for profit.

6. The charge stated on the (virtually unreadable) signs is £100. The claimant is claiming additional "indemnity costs" with no explanation of what those costs are, how (if at all) they have been incurred, and why the defendant should be liable for them. It is suggested that this is nothing but a means of artificially inflating the value of the claim. Also due to reasons sated above, as no contract was formed, I cannot be subject to any fictional damages or loss incurred.


7. The claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and it is disputed that the claimant has authority to operate on this land and issue charges in its own name. At best the claimant is merely the agent of the lawful occupier and is therefore the wrong claimant. If the claimant believes otherwise then he must produce his full, unredacted contract with the lawful occupier, which authorizes him to so operate in his own name.

spaceman8

I'm not too sure about the last point. I don't really know what I'm arguing there. I found it in someone else's defence and it seemed relevant somehow.

spaceman8

Hi

I've been go ogling sra investigation gladstones. Nothing comes up. Are they keeping this hush or is it something that's ongoing so they can't advertise it or something like that?

beamerguy

spaceman8 wrote: »

Hi

I've been go ogling sra investigation gladstones. Nothing comes up. Are they keeping this hush or is it something that's ongoing so they can't advertise it or something like that?

You won't, depends what the SRA DO, REST ASSURED this forum will know about what the SRA do faster than the Daily Mail

spaceman8

I just got a response to my part 18. This is what the idiots wrote:

Good Morning

!

As a claim has been issued we suggest you make a formal application through the courts. We trust you agree that the costs that would be incurred in responding to your points at this stage would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim.


Regards

beamerguy

spaceman8 wrote: »

I just got a response to my part 18. This is what the idiots wrote:

Good Morning

!

As a claim has been issued we suggest you make a formal application through the courts. We trust you agree that the costs that would be incurred in responding to your points at this stage would be disproportionate to the amount of the claim.


Regards

The morning after the pub with these guys.

Go straight to the SRA about their conduct, Gladstones are not in the interests of the public or the credibility of the SRA

spaceman8

Hi people. need a little help again.

fast forwarding a little. I've submitted my defence, gladstone have emailed saying they want a paper based hearing.

I've read done some research. all it looks like i have to do at this stage is simply fill out the DQ n180. just as they have done. is that correct?

where in the form do i put the part about not wanting a paper based hearing? is it in section D1-hearing venue?

and then do i need to make 2 copies, one for the court and the other to gladstone?

also, they've mentioned something about the courts sending me an n159. i never got this through the post. do i need to do something about this as well?
thank you

Coupon-mad

I normally suggest putting a covering letter securely stapled (not paper-clipped!) to the DQ. Not too long - no repeating your defence - just saying 3 or 4 concise things. Set out clearly but briefly (as you will have seen in lots of threads on here and pepipoo) that:

(a) as an unrepresented defendant you require a hearing at your local Court because Gladstones have followed their usual well-trodden path of robo-claims with no due diligence, offering no evidence of any contract, no facts nor clear and concise Particulars of Claim. They are known to withhold any contract/facts until the last minute (often ambushing Defendants late with paperwork never shown earlier).

(b) This potentially causes any consumer extreme disadvantage if these cases are heard 'on the papers' because based on the routinely scant information provided to you so far, it has been almost impossible to put together a detailed defence thus far. Respectfully request that, in the event that the claim is not struck out due to the lack of Particulars, the court exercises its discretion to allow a more detailed defence to be submitted without cost, should Gladstones finally produce facts, details, a contract and evidence.

(c) State that in response to a reasonable and timely written request for facts and details of this claim, Gladstones refused to answer any points whatsoever.

(d) Request the court strike out this claim, for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

and then do i need to make 2 copies, one for the court and the other to gladstone?

Yep. Keep the faith!


P.S. You won't be getting a N159 = Notice of allocation to small claims track (no hearing) because you won't be having a case heard on the papers because you are objecting to that. You will get a Notice of Allocation later on but not a 'N159 no hearing' version.