Looks like I am going to court with Gladstones.

salmosalaris

Carthesis wrote: »

What's curious there is that, if they have decided that the monies represent damages for trespass, then VCS shouldn't be able to bring the case in front of the courts, as only the landowner has standing. And, in that case, then the landowner would have to qualify the amount of damages by demonstrating their losses and costs due to the trespass...

Seems to me - although I am far far far from being a legal expert because I am not any form of legal professional and thus am working on the basis of logic and common sense only - that means that if VCS aren't paying VAT on the basis of that case, then they can't bring any cases for anything other than trespass? Which they aren't allowed to do unless their contract expressly allows them to.

And the opposite - if they are bringing cases for breach, and are stating as such (that the case is being brought for breach), then how can they not provide evidence of VAT payments?

We need bargepole or HO87 or someone of that ilk to fill us in here.

utter twaddle
VAT is not payable on damages for breach , and whether it is payable on tickets is a matter between the landowner and PPC , VAT is not payable by the motorist ( unless it it a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking ) -,read the VAT memorandum on parking penalties .
VAT does become payable ( on the penalties received ) if the landowner allows the PPC to keep the penalties as they would be deemed consideration for the PPC's services for the purposes of VAT , see PE contracts .

The VCS case differed due to the specific nature of their contract with the landowner and the charges were likened to damages for trespass and allowed for recovery in their name hence no VAT was payable. The penalties were not deemed to be consideration for the services of VCS . The judgment was questionable ( yet again ) not least because the earlier judgment had largely spelled the end of PPC world
being able to stick up their signs on someone else's land and issue charges for breach in their name .

As CM says VAT is a useless defence point other than in proving a charge is not a contractual sum due in return for the offer of parking if VAT is not charged . OP's don't need to be fuelled with rubbish and hot air

onearmbandit

Here is my response to Gladstones LBC reply

Any criticism/advice is welcome as ever!

In reference to your letter dated xxt November (received xx) it should be known by yourselves that my request was entirely in accordance with the Over-riding Objective and CPR 1.1(2)(a) whilst I remind you that pre-action conduct in line with the Practice directions for pre-action conduct require both parties to narrow the issues to try and settle amicably (3c). This is only made possible if you give me the information I have requested (3a). Therefore, I find your answers to be deliberately obstructive and contrary to that set out in the practice directions and civil practice rules.

Essentially, in court all parking issues come down to the wording on, and positioning of, the signage. Therefore it is clear that the documents requested are an essential element of information exchange during the pre-action protocol and key in the defendant being able to decide to settle before the courts or to adequately prepare a defence. Moreover, this information will always be on file by the parking company as it is required for the appeals process.

It is not acceptable to only supply this information in the witness statement 14 days before a hearing because this is too late to comply with objectives of pre-action conduct 3a,b,c,d,e and f. Additionally, the wording of the contract and method of conclusion are a requirement of the particulars of claim (Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3-7.5)

I can only conclude that the reason you are not supplying me this information is because you have done no due diligence on this claim yourselves and are not in possession of this information. You can obtain this information from your client with a simple email but have thus far chosen not to do so in order to both save costs and to obstruct the causes of justice.

With regards to the additional £50, I repeat that the maximum sum that can be claimed, according to POFA Schedule 4(5), is the amount of the original parking charge. A claim for an amount that you know cannot be recovered would be a breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct. In my opinion, the behaviour of Gladstones is likely to bring solicitors into disrepute and is therefore against the code of conduct.

I understand your company is currently being investigated by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority for a number of issues similar to this and I would therefore like to report this case to them. Please therefore forward me the name and practising number of the supervising solicitor for this case.

Finally, please regard this letter as a formal request under CPR 31.14 to provide all of the documents sent by your client including all photographs taken at the scene

Regards

onearmbandit

I realise it is a Sunday - but anyone? Is it a good response? Is it accurate - is there anything else I should add?

Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

Yes it will do the job for this stage, the important thing being not to go quiet, not to leave the ball in their court.

No need to bust a gut over it right now, more work on your part will be needed if they start a claim which they probably will because no facts are considered, this is a roboclaim firm. So keep rebutting but it almost doesn't matter how you word it, they'll ignore it.

salmosalaris

In their reply to your LBC they identify the charge as a contractual sum rather than for breach or trespass . You. could have worded things better as you've left a little wriggle room .

Add this
In your reply to my acknowledgment of your LBC you have identified that the charge ,that is allegedly due , is a contractual sum for the provision of parking . Quite clearly this is a nonsense but if it were it would be subject to VAT therefore please either issue
a. a valid VAT invoice ( as you are required to following my request )
or
b.an explanation as to why the charge has not had VAT applied .

Carthesis

salmosalaris wrote: »

utter twaddle

...

OP's don't need to be fuelled with rubbish and hot air

Never ever suggested it as a defence point. I was "thinking out loud" in general terms.

It was a case I'd not heard of before, and - in my non-legal but common-sense view - it seemed to suggest that a CRIMINAL COURT CASE had made a ruling on VAT in relation to parking charges.

I appreciate the clarification.

onearmbandit

Ok - so I responded to the Gladstones letter before claim response. No reply was forthcoming. But I did get a county court claim. So clearly they are not making any attempt at pre-protocol resolution!

Here are the particulars of claim.

---

DATE

---

DESCRIPTION

---

AMOUNT

---

DUE DATE

---

XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
Total due: £150
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
The claimant claims the sum of £153.45 for
parking charges and indemnity costs if
applicable including £3.45 interest pursuant
to S.69 of the county court act 1984 RAATE
8.00% pa from dates above to 14/12/16
Same rate to judgement or (sooner) payment
Daily rate to judgement £0.03
Total debt and interest £153.45

The claimant believes that the facts states in this claim are true nd I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement
SIGNED: JWA......

Any comments???

I have uploaded all my pictures onto photobucket but used my name as the username - sadly the username is part of the blooming URL/photobucket link - so will need to try again. Or does it really not matter if I use my name now?

Kind_Of_Irritated

Speaking as an observer with a similar fight with Gladhands, and not an expert - it is important that your url does NOT contain your name. Can you make a new account without your name. Many eyes... etc

Coupon-mad

Any comments???

No need for comments on a standard G's claim, we've seen so many before and so will you when you look.

Best advice is to search this board for:


'Gladstones defence'

or

'Gladstones roboclaims'

or

'Gladstones incoherent'

...all of which find defences written regarding claims very similar to yours.

Also on 27th November I advised where to find example defences in the NEWBIES thread:

You will already know from bargepole's post linked under 'Small Claim?'* in the NEWBIES thread, that the case will be heard at your local court but please search the forum for the words: 'Gladstones straightforward' once you have submitted your defence because if one more person asks about G's 'Special Directions' tedious letter enclosing a copy of their DQ and pretending it would be a jolly wheeze to hear the case 'on the papers', I will scream! It is discussed on every G's claim thread. After you've submitted your defence, be ready for round two.


*example defences are there too

onearmbandit

Below is a link to my documents. Frustratingly the PCN and response from Gladstone to my LBC response have both appeared upside down. I have spent 4 hours re-orientating them but they just keep coming out upside down. At a loss!

In any case - you can see the signage, the notice to keeper, letter before claim and court claim letters sent.

If anyone spots any inadequacies on the NTK or LBC please advise!!!!

Many thanks!!

http://s1070.photobucket.com/user/onearmba...pbuioo.jpg.html