Lbc Gladstones advice pls - Fluttering ticket

Gemwill

Thanks for reading
To start I admit i have said i was the driver in my appeal to IAS, I(didnt do my homework)
I appealed to link parking, that was rejected. My first evidence went to IAS and now i can submit further evidence, want to check if i can find any flaws with signs etc?

How do i post photos please?
Thanks

Coupon-mad

Why are you trying IAS as you will lose then you will feel on the back foot? None of the advice here tells people to try IAS in almost any case - you do realise it is run by the same people who run the Trade Body, two people who are also the same controlling minds behind Gladstones, who will assist Link to sue you after you lose.

You can show photos as a link to where you host them (Dropbox, Tinypic etc).

Change the URL from http to hxxp as you can't post working links yet.

We are not saying to pay, just telling you that Link will try a small claim anyway and losing at the IAS does not help you. But you've started it now so be ready to take the decision with a pinch of salt.

Gemwill

I was naive and assumed i was doing it right. Hard lesson ��


Edited as can now post links
Signs etc
This is the only sign I seen before I purchased a ticket, no reference to link or to other signs
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dtkozplrv0za29y/20170114_210305.jpg?dl=0

Entrance sign no terms and no reference to other signs
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5hq7hhthee6fmv/FB_IMG_1483101243006.jpg?dl=0

Return visit to car park to take photos - seen on boundary wall mentions £50 at bottom
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x9c60q9d29a3rzr/20170307_151741.jpg?dl=0

Few meters from sign above, £50 wording removed/changed
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j7hzqqsodnel1oj/20170307_151809.jpg?dl=0

fisherjim

Gemwill wrote: »

I was naive and assumed i was doing it right. Hard lesson ��
Just trying to upload now
[IMG]hxxp://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/YVtCv9FOyvegHmgLODGvolGYkttpffHz9WLaaxPWRpQsGynrpSwEbqKbarTW0cga/file[/IMG]
[IMG]hxxp://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/sotTuRLgjAqGZq4eTNQVbVhxi4wCDOGRjeJF4ykZUV6UtdIbdNrqGcC95qPUmaqy/file[/IMG]
[IMG]hxxps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/content_link/k85ngUnfauzRtbJehdrW7Fynvo6GmGqelY3QeYcQI44veP2AA3XHQemsVCKfRuq8/file[/IMG]

Sorry can't convert any of those links for you they don't go anywhere

Coupon-mad

Gemwill wrote: »

I was naive and assumed i was doing it right. Hard lesson ��

Yes indeed, you will likely lose then they will try to use that flawed decision in their favour at court. Always better NOT to hand them that advantage but we realise you thought the IAS was a real appeals 'service'.

And people have won in court despite a POPLA or IAS loss under their belt!

Those Dropbox links don't work for me either - when changing hxxp to http = error.

Gemwill

How can i fond out if this is the contract used please?
2.5 states that watning signs should be at entrance yet there arent any.
Hope my links worked below. ��


hxxp:// . dropbox.com/s/t19bwyicyj4bpc0/Link-Parking-ltd-contract.pdf?dl=0[/url

Www. Needs to be added at the start as well.

Coupon-mad

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5585880

Your threads need merging into one, so much easier for us to handle one case, one thread. Send a pm to Crabman or Soolin or Browntoa (click on their username).

Gemwill

Sorry i thought it was a different question , so different thread. Will ask for a merge now.
thank you

Gemwill

Received my LBC last week, I replied using information from this forum and another. Everyone advised I would receive a robot letter back, but it's personalised and whilst doesn't address everything it does defend some points. My question is do I reply to.it? Wasn't expecting to but caught me unaware.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

What makes you think template responses are personalised? It really isn't. Maybe the odd thing has been inserted to make you think the letter is 'just for you' but it is not.

Gemwill

thank you for reading this, its a long one....
Received my LBC, i replied and the received a response from them which has thrown me as it says they have been instructed not to enter into further correspondence
I have read lots of advice and i am absorbing it as quick as this process will allow me to.
Should i reply to show that i am trying to be reasonable and resolve?
At this point shall I ask for the documents they will rely on not just the 3 they mentioned PCN/NTK/NTD - i assume that signs and contracts etc should form part of it?
there is no breakdown of charges, additional £60 added since NTK

Below are the letters, (I have retyped them so excuse and spelling errors)

Letter Before Claim

We act on behalf of our Claimant and we have now been instructed to commence legal action against you to recover the amount due above, as you have failed to settle the debts that are owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. We understand that our client has written to you request payment but the amounts are still outstanding.
PCN number xxx
Date of charge xxxx
Location xxxx
Charge amount £160

The debt relates to parking charges (detailed above) for which you are liable.
Full details of the charges have previously been provided to you within the parking charge notices and/or notices to driver/keeper that have been served upon you. The claimant will rely on these documents in the forthcoming action against you.

We refer you to the practice direction for pre-action conduct under the civil Procedure Rules and in particular paragraph 13-16 of the same which concerns the Court's powers to impose sanctions for any failure to comply.

We now require you to pay the full amount within 14 days. Alternatively, you should provide an acknowledgement of receipt of this letter and a full written response within 14 days. Your response should provide your full account of the circumstances that have led to the charges being Imposed and should include confirmation as to who the driver(s) of the vehicle were at the time of each incident and a current address for service for each driver.

Unless a satisfactory response is provided, we are instructed to start proceedings against you without any further notice in order to recover the amounts due and costs associated with the recovery of them. The amount that is claimed may therefore increase in terms of costs and any interest that is recoverable.

If you are unsure about anything contained within this letter, you should seek advice from a solicitor or contact one of the following organisations who may be able to help you;
Yours Sincerely
Gladstone’s Solicitors

My Reply

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for your letter dated xx. This alleged debt is denied in its’ entirety and court proceedings will be vigorously defended with costs sought.
If your client wishes to continue in this manner, I have no hesitation about representing this case before the courts. The evidence collated is plentiful and verbose.
The information you have supplied does not give enough detail about the alleged event and why the supposed debt was issued. I am aware of a case with Link Parking Ltd, where I appealed immediately after issue of the notice to driver. This negated any costs needed to be spent in relation to keeper data from the DVLA. In my original letter dated 2nd December 2016 I had informed your client I was the driver, yet your client still applied for my details as per the NTK dated 10th January. This is not in line with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The appeal was rejected by your client despite presenting sufficient evidence and I was then allowed access to the IAS which is owned by the same individuals as your solicitor firm. Once more despite evidence being presented common sense failed to prevail.
Car park management is about preventing abuse of facilities, I have already proved that I was not there to take advantage and not pay for a period of parking, the fact that your client has many fluttering ticket cases and refuses to issue sticky tickets to prevent this also adds to the weighting of his predatory practices.
Despite your assertion that your letter of claim is fully compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre Action Conduct it is lacking essential information and furthermore, it appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the recipient. It fails woefully, for example on Proportionality and the offer of ADR. A true independent alternative dispute resolution service should be offered, one that does not have a conflict of interest with the firm chasing the perceived debt. It states that the Claimant will rely upon the PCN and NTK in the forthcoming action against recipient, are these the only documents the Claimant will rely upon? If not to fully comply can you please ensure that you provide these as per the Practice Direction on Pre Action Conduct.
I feel extremely aggrieved to have been a genuine customer who paid for a period of parking to be penalised in such a manner. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 cannot be enacted as the claimant had already been supplied with details of the driver prior to the Notice to the Keeper. Neither does Parking Eye Vs. Beavis hold any consequence as this site is paid for parking.
Fairness should be called in to account here, the reason why it has failed so far is that your client and yourselves are undertaking a predatory system within which you persecute unsuspecting victims.
Any court proceedings you decide to initiate will be subject to scrutiny for compliance with Pre-action protocols. Non- compliance is a serious matter which the court will carefully consider when giving directions for the management of proceedings.
May I refer you to paragraph 14 of the Practice Direction which states:
The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance when a party has –
(a) Not provided sufficient information to enable the objectives in paragraph 3 to be met;
(b) Not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant protocol, or within a reasonable period; or
(c) Unreasonably refused to use a form of ADR, or failed to respond at all to an invitation to do so.
Please provide a fully compliant Letter before claim which meets with all the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. If you need further guidance, this can be found at:
justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
Once a fully compliant Letter Before Claim is received then a formal response will be submitted within 30 days of receipt as required by the Practice Direction.
Please ensure that a named person actually reads and responds to this letter, providing the specific information relating to the county court claim that your client intends to make against myself as the defendant. DO NOT send a generic reply or attempt to dismiss this reasonable request for the mandatory regulations to be followed correctly. This would also fail to meet the requirements of the Practice Direction and to do so will result in the dismissal of the case should you attempt to take it to court.
A further refusal to comply with the Practice Direction may also result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principle contained in the SRA Handbook.
I trust this will not be necessary, and look forward to receiving said compliant documents in due course.
Here are your options:
1) Issuing a compliant Letter Before Action
2) File a claim within the small claims court – this will be defended in full, particulars of claim should be comprehensive regarding this charge.
3) Cancel the speculative invoice
If you choose to cancel this invoice then you and your client are obliged to remove all data relating to this as you no longer have reasonable cause to hold it on your system and this process is causing considerable duress to myself and my family, under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act you must remove my data from your systems and that of your agents and confirm you have done so within 21 days.
Failure to respond is a breach of the relevant section of the Data Protection Act and will be reported to the ICO. This may result in sanctions being taken out against you, including suspension of your licence as a Data Controller.
This could have an adverse effect on your business. You should treat this as a Formal Section 10 Notification and pass to your Data Controller.

Sincerely,
Xxxx

Their reply

Thank you for your correspondence
My client doesn’t dispute that you may have paid for parking, however it is your obligation pursuant to the contract (the sign) to ensure that the ticket is displayed. As evident from the photographs you didn’t display a ticket in accordance with the terms.
It is an integral part of the parking scheme that a valid ticket is displayed as otherwise the scheme would be unmanageable. If my client were to waive one charge on the basis put forward it would open the floodgates to the waiver of many more charges, making the parking management process that has been put in place entirely redundant.

Your opinion on the fairness of the parking charge cannot impact on your liability to pay. Quite simply, in parking in the manner you did, you understood a charge would apply. My clients charges are issued in accordance with the guidelines set out by its trade association and are industry standard.
Paragraph 108 of the judgement in the recent supreme court case of Parking Eye and Beavis (2015) said “the concept of a negotiated agreement to enter a car park is somewhat artificial but it is perfectly workable provided one bears in mind it is objective …””in our view a reasonable motorist would have agreed to the term”. The term in my client’s contract was reasonable in the same way that it was in Parking Eye.
We believe our letter before claim meets the requirements of the practice direction and is subsequently compliant.
In view of the above, the amount of £160 remains outstanding. To make payment you can do so via ….blah blah
We are not instructed to enter into further correspondence. In the absence of payment within 14 days from the date of this letter a claim will be issued without further notice and you may incur further costs.
Yours
Gladstone