Claim form- PCM & Gladstones

spaceman8

hi

so I've sent off my witness statement. Gladstone have just emailed me theirs it reads as:

I, Georgina Philpot, OF The Courtyard, 1A Cranbourne Road, SL1 2XF WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make
this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own
knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information
supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from
other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are following documents which my Company
wishes to rely upon;
i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as
described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’)
ii) The Sign (i.e. the Contract)
iii) The Site Plan
iv) Notices
v) Photographs of the incident

3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant
Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the
Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
PM09407620
17th January 2016
Heath Parade - NW9
Parked in restricted area

Part 18 Request
4. I have been advised that Gladstones Solicitors Ltd did receive a Part 18 Request from the
Defendant on 16 September 2016, after the Claim had been issued and the Claim Form received
by the Defendant. Paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 18 states that a “Request should be
concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to
enable the first party to prepare his own case or to understand the case he has to meet.” I
respectfully submit the Defendant’s Part 18 Request was neither concise nor strictly confined
and therefore the Claimant was not required to provide a response. The defendant would have
been aware of the parking charge notice after receiving correspondence regarding it.
Particulars of Claim

5. The Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically
provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of
the Claim. In any event, I can confirm that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient
information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to; namely:-
i) The date of the charge;
ii) The vehicle registration number;
iii) The Parking Charge Notice number;
iv) The amount outstanding;
v) That is relates to parking charges; and
vi) That it is debt.

6. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with
the Act and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the charge
which is/are the subject of this claim.
Did not see the signs/the terms are unfair

7. The signs are independently audited by the IPC which is an accredited trade assocation within
the parking sector. Therefore, my Company rejects any argument regarding the signs. My
Company also rejects any argument that the Defendant did not see the sign. It is evident from
the site plan that there are sufficient signs.

8. What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant didn’t see the signs I
submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of
Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000,
“Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver
cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be
too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of
stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property”
No authority to enforce charges

9. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the
authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and
Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a
right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a
parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any
event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences
my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the
Landowner.

10. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186
1. “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have
the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not
have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious
flaw in this reasoning.
2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to
perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.
If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock
market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they
do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the
contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of
sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to
contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to
perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and
Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held
to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would
not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in
precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the
land.
Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on
the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to
enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a
contract with the motorist to permit parking”

Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered
11. The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy my Company’s
legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was
neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking
operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of
£100. My Company’s charges are within this level. The charge is not, therefore, excessive.

12. The recent decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor
do they have to be reflective of the parking operator’s loss. Furthermore, they are they are
entitled to be at a level that provides a deterrent effect.

The Current Debt
13. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of
the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to
the parking charge incurred.

14. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal
representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my
Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time
could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company
believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of
the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage.
The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses.
Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed:
Print: Georgina Philpot
Dated: 11 January 2017

Coupon-mad

Good old Georgina Philpot and her statements of truth...make sure you are fully aware of all issues as explained by the Parking Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/gladstones-discontinue-heath-parade-case.html

Was it Mrs Sunglasses who took the photos in this case too?

I would take along to court a copy of PP's Blog even though it's not in your evidence list, just in case at the point that the discussion really focusses on the signs and the speed of the lurking attendant appearing from nowhere, the Judge might let you show the Blog all about this scam.

spaceman8

Thank you for the help. I'm working my way through. ill put up what i think my counter arguments, any help would be appreciated.

I'm pretty sure it was the same woman.

old_dinosaur

Hi good luck am sure you ll win. Make sure you claim expenses not just postage but apparently £19/hr for work preparing defence as well as parking costs at the court. I ve just had my charge discontinued before witness statement had to be in, so cheated out of costs!
Parking Prangsters words that the sign is a forbidding one as you can't pay to park and most landowner not ppc can do is bring case of trespass against you.
Miss sunglasses frequents the place clicking away to trap motorists in fact I believe her car is deliberately parked in the layby, a case of entrapment.
Wait to hear your win.

spaceman8

Hi people,

i really need some help with countering the points above :

point 4) I've basically written that they lied as they sent me an email saying it would cost too much
point 5) the particulars of claim are insufficient and have no cause of action and is unclear. its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the particulars of claim
point 7) ill talk about my own photos and highlight that the signs are unreadable

need help with the other points. any and all help is really appreciated.

thank you

spaceman8

Hi people,

i really need some help with countering the points above :

point 4) I've basically written that they lied as they sent me an email saying it would cost too much
point 5) the particulars of claim are insufficient and have no cause of action and is unclear. its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the particulars of claim
point 7) ill talk about my own photos and highlight that the signs are unreadable

need help with the other points. any and all help is really appreciated.

thank you

The_Deep

court. I ve just had my charge discontinued before witness statement had to be in, so cheated out of costs!

Not necessarily, it appears that they may have obtained your RK details without due cause, thus breaching your DPA rights, and their Kadoe contract, and could be fined £250 - £750.

Read this

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/smart-parking-settle-out-of-court-for.html


http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

Coupon-mad

spaceman8 wrote: »

Hi people,

i really need some help with countering the points above :

point 4) I've basically written that they lied as they sent me an email saying it would cost too much
point 5) the particulars of claim are insufficient and have no cause of action and is unclear. its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the particulars of claim
point 7) ill talk about my own photos and highlight that the signs are unreadable

need help with the other points. any and all help is really appreciated.

thank you

Sounds like you are on the right track, just answer each point from their WS, blow by blow, and add the Prankster's Blog and cases won at the same location, as part of your evidence.

Show us the full draft of what you want to say, as that's easier for us to comment on.

spaceman8

I, Georgina Philpot, OF The Courtyard, 1A Cranbourne Road, SL1 2XF WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make
this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own
knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information
supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from
other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are following documents which my Company
wishes to rely upon;
i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as
described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’)
ii) The Sign (i.e. the Contract)
iii) The Site Plan
iv) Notices
v) Photographs of the incident

3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant
Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the
Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
PCN NUMBER DATE OF CHARGE LOCATION DESCRIPTION
PM09407620
17th January 2016
Heath Parade - NW9
Parked in restricted area

Part 18 Request
4. I have been advised that Gladstones Solicitors Ltd did receive a Part 18 Request from the
Defendant on 16 September 2016, after the Claim had been issued and the Claim Form received
by the Defendant. Paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 18 states that a “Request should be
concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to
enable the first party to prepare his own case or to understand the case he has to meet.” I
respectfully submit the Defendant’s Part 18 Request was neither concise nor strictly confined
and therefore the Claimant was not required to provide a response. The defendant would have
been aware of the parking charge notice after receiving correspondence regarding it.

The reasoning given for rejecting my part 18 request is an attempt to manipulate the facts as they were and is an attempt to mislead the courts. The reason given to myself via email on the 18/09/16:

“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

Lorna
Litigation Assistant”

Sir/Madam citing “costs would be too much” to respond to a part 18 request is not an acceptable response. The matters requested in the part 18 should have been relatively simple and easy to comply with. Requesting more information should not cost anything, or be at all disproportionate. This was an attempt to deny information as hinder my ability to properly prepare a defense. I have attached a copy of the part 18 requests as so that it can be reviewed by yourself. Further more, I believe Gladstones don’t ever respond to pat 18 requests as I have found numerous posts online where they have responded in exactly the same manor, word for word.

Particulars of Claim

5. The Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically
provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of
the Claim. In any event, I can confirm that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient
information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to; namely:-
i) The date of the charge;
ii) The vehicle registration number;
iii) The Parking Charge Notice number;
iv) The amount outstanding;
v) That is relates to parking charges; and
vi) That it is debt.

6. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with
the Act and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the charge
which is/are the subject of this claim.

The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged conduct in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no definite cause of action. The particulars of claim are insufficient and is unclear. Its unreasonable to assume that letters previously received fill in for the lack of information provided in the inadequate particlars of claim.

Did not see the signs/the terms are unfair

7. The signs are independently audited by the IPC which is an accredited trade assocation within
the parking sector. Therefore, my Company rejects any argument regarding the signs. My
Company also rejects any argument that the Defendant did not see the sign. It is evident from
the site plan that there are sufficient signs.

8. What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant didn’t see the signs I
submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of
Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000,
“Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver
cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be
too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method land owners have of
stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property”

As highlighted in the witness statement, The laughably inadequate signs are in such a position that not legible from within the car. The sign is so small & unreadable that it requires the driver to exit the vehicle and stand directly below the sign. in the smallest of letters is written the £100 charge. The signage is in no way sufficient. Further more, it does not even comply with the IPC's code of conduct, the accredited trade association the claimant refers to!

No authority to enforce charges

9. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the
authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and
Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a
right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a
parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any
event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences
my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the
Landowner.

10. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186
1. “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have
the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not
have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious
flaw in this reasoning.
2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to
perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.
If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock
market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they
do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the
contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of
sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to
contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to
perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and
Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held
to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would
not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in
precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the
land.
Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on
the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to
enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a
contract with the motorist to permit parking”

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, in this case Peel Land & Property Ltd. 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.

Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered
11. The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy my Company’s
legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was
neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking
operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of
£100. My Company’s charges are within this level. The charge is not, therefore, excessive.

The Claimant has ignored the Government’s official position on parking charges as expressed clearly in the Department for Transport Guidance on the Recovery of Parking Charges:
“Charges for breaking a parking contract must be reasonable and a genuine pre-estimate of loss. This means charges must compensate the landholder only for the loss they are likely to suffer because the parking contract has been broken. For example, to cover the unpaid charges and the administrative costs associated with issuing the ticket to recover the charges. Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver.”

The amount demanded cannot possibly be a genuine pre-estimate of the Claimant’s loss. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £150. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor’s cost to prepare the claim.
The Defendant refers the court to the incompetent Particulars of Claim that disclose neither the basis for the claim nor a definite cause of action.
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the named solicitor did not prepare the claim and did not therefore charge the stated amount.

Further more, in the case Parkingeye vs Beavis, the £85 charge was a charge for contravening the terms of contract. The terms were clear. As per entering and parkling at the sight for 2 hours, exceeding this would result incur a £85 charge. The consideration flows both ways as both parties gain something for parking. Thus the contract was formed. In the case before you today, PCM issued the fine for simply stopping in the loading bay. The sign is absolutely forbidding. That stopping in the loading bay, even for a second, automatically incurs a charge before the client has even had a chance to become aware of any terms of the site. It would be absurd that such a situation would count as a valid contract. 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.

12. The recent decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor
do they have to be reflective of the parking operator’s loss. Furthermore, they are they are
entitled to be at a level that provides a deterrent effect.

If the charges are high as meant to be a deterrent effect then how can a fine be issued in a manner that does not allow the driver to be deterred. A true deterent would be allowing the driver the time to read the terms at site, see the high costs demanded for stopping and move the vehicle. Thus the charge acting as a deterrent. However the operator is practicing in a predatory manor. My brother can attest to this. This was also found in the paking prankster case. If this was nothing more than entrapment, the operator would act in a manor that would allow drivers the grace period to consider the terms and would make genuine attemts to mitigate any loss.

The Current Debt
13. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of
the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to
the parking charge incurred.

14. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal
representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my
Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time
could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company
believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of
the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage.
The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses.
Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

In addition to the £100 ‘parking charge’, for which liability is denied, the Claimant’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, 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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed:
Print: Georgina Philpot
Dated: 11 January 2017

spaceman8

this is the evidence they've put up as permission to do as they want:

http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg577/smilezilla/permission%20to%20enforce_zpss9v9u0vv.jpg