Gladstones - Confirmation of Payment?

DonD_2

Hi all,
I have received a strange email last month from Gladstones,
it said:

Dear x
This email is confirmation of your payment in the sum of £420

Kind Regards

But I have not paid anything, as I'm waiting for my hearing in April.
This was following court papers issued to me for the sum of £398.. for 2 PCN's for me not having a permit in my own bay, issued 12 months ago.

So, not sure what to make of this email, waited to see if anything happened, but no word after.

Notice, the confirmation amount is different to whats displayed on my court papers, it looks to be a mistake... :undecided

I've been following the procedures on this site as best I can prior to this
- using legal templates, to reply and display in court when the time comes,
- complaining to SRA about the LBC
- complaining to the landholder for unfair practices

I am not sure of the next step, do I contact Gladstones to follow through?
Surely the court was to be informed if it was resolved, once again though, heard nothing from anyone.
So, what would you do?

Molts

I would not contact Gladstones at all atm. Personally I would contact the court direct and determine the status of your case. It could be a ruse to dupe you into a false sense of security in the hope you do not show and they obtain judgement by default.

However, wait for one of the experienced forum regulars to advise. Time is on your side as it stands...

pogofish

Have you ever given Gladstones your email?

If not, this could be another variation on the PPC scam/phishing emails that have been doing the rounds since last year and may have nothing at all to do with anything.

Are there any links/attachments it asks you to open - if so, don't!

DonD_2

@pogofish yep, correspondence was done through email, was in reply to previous emails (offer for settlement, court claim papers).
I do get alot of convincing phishing emails, but I dont think this isn't one of them...

@Molts...sneaky! Will check up on the status..

Coupon-mad

I'm waiting for my hearing in April.

Yes but not just waiting - you do know, I hope:

- that you have a date in the court hearing paperwork setting out the date by which you must file your Witness Statement and your evidence, case law etc?

- about the 'Jopson' appeal case and 'Pace v Mr N' etc., which will be part of your evidence? As mentioned in the Parking Prankster's blog on residential car parks - and those transcripts are in his case law pages.

Have you read lots of other own space defences v Gladstones? And you know what to do when? As per bargepole's thread linked in the NEWBIES thread under 'small claim?'

DonD_2

Hello coupon,
thanks for that piece of info, wish I saw your thread sooner...

Is the witness statement the same as the defence statement? If so, after reading bargepol's, I think my one's inadequate... too many irrelevant points about POPLA I think, and I sound a bit angry.
And... I think crucially, I did not mention that my tenancy agreement does not mention permits at all or anything about parking, Doh...

Would you advise I amend it?

btw about the status of the case: Online the case says nothing different, but I emailed them to make sure...

DonD_2

mistake, I was reading my response to LBC -.-

Here is my defence, I still miss out the bit with the tenancy agreement:

There has been no loss to warrant the large sum stated by the
claimant.

I admit I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

I have not been sent evidence on any occasion by the claimant
their solicitors of the documents or records which they rely on.

The signs throughout the deployment did not convey clearly to
passer bys that a permit is required on the deployment.
Furthermore they were unreadable and wordy, and did not contain
key information that would have been useful to me at that time,
this is more so at night, to which I returned from work in winter.
The claimant relies on the fact that though-out the deployment
there were clear signs, to which I deny. Whilst there was signs,
the content was not visible, or clear.
Even if the signage was acceptable, the charge demanded by the
claimant is not, and the sum of money resulting in this claim is
beyond unfair.

A clear sign at the entrance to a car park is a specific
requirement of the British Parking Association that the Claimant
is required to follow.
The Claimant states they are a member as evidenced on the parking
sign. This was absent.

There was no facility to obtain a permit as the office that issued
them was shut as evidenced by Barratt website for Copper Quarter
‘Open Monday 12.30pm to 5.30pm, Tuesday - Sunday 10.00am to
5.30pm’.

I dispute the authority of the Claimant to bring this claim. The
Claimant does not own the land where the vehicle was parked, nor
does he have any interest in the land. He therefore lacks the
capacity to offer parking.

I quote from the landholder’s statement:
“At a residents meeting in May 2016 it was unanimously agreed by
the residents that we terminate the services of MPS and that
alternative parking arrangements be introduced. This is still on
going

Barratt wish to confirm it was not our intention for our residents
to suffer as a consequence of the parking system introduced, it
was a way of assisting them to enjoy their homes and access to
them.”

Clearly as a resident I have not relish the claimant’s presence or
their procedure whilst for the most part other than for the
reasons in this claim, have bided by the rules for residency and
parking.

I as a resident have had distress under the procedures of the
Claimant and their tactics used to acquire payment. I have reason
to believe the Claimant is abusing the Court process by using the
threat of action and the threat of damaging my credit rating to
alarm me into making a payment that is not owed.

The Claimant has failed to provide strict proof of a chain of
contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant which show
that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with
the overriding rights conferred in the Lease.

Alternatively, even if a contract could be established, the
provision requiring payment of £150.00 is an unenforceable penalty
clause and an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act
2015.
Not to mention the final sum of nearly £400 demanded in this
claim, which is incorrect, unfair and immoral.

The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons why the Claimant
requires a payment other than it results from the ‘Parking Rules’
on the signage. It is a forbidding sign that cannot create a
contract.

The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been
to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the
actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead a predatory
operation has been carried out on those very people whose
interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.
The final paragraph in the statement provided to me by the
Director of Copper Quarter proves this.

The vehicle was parked on land in accordance with the terms of the
Lease.

The claimant and the subsequent Debt recovery agencies
continuously relied upon the landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis
to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge, or rather
to convince me into paying, however this case can be distinguished
from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which
was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually
prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique
facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner.
Strict compliance with the BPA(CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis
was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to
pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this
applies in this material case.
In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must
not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some
other ‘legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the
prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the
breach in question’. The true test was held to be ‘whether the
impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes
detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any
legitimate interest[…..] in enforcement of the primary obligation’

There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising residents or
their visitors for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a
scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned,
the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents.
It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith
and ‘out of all proportion to any legitimate interest’ to fine
residents or their visitors for using allocated parking spaces.

I furthermore dispute that the Claimant has incurred solicitors
costs of £50 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 amount claimed includes charges for a solicitor that the
Claimant has not incurred plus interest that has been charged

thoughts? Was this adequate?
Apologies if I needed to make a new thread..

Coupon-mad

Yes but that was your defence, which is not your only job before the hearing. Have another read of the section under 'Small Claim?' in the NEWBIES thread (particularly the thread by bargepole about what happens when) and re-read your court date letter from your local court, for the date by which you MUST file your evidence and WS.

It's not your original defence.

DonD_2

Update, I had to phone my local court, not MoneyClaim, it is in fact ended, happens when a refund has occurred they said, they mentioned I do not have to go to the hearing, woohoo!
So that email was not bogus.

In my ignorance I did not file the witness statement as you probably have guessed...
I got worried, and thought this was going to be quite damaging for me.
So... this is quite a relief for me.

Thank you all very much for your help!

Coupon-mad

DonD wrote: »

Update, I had to phone my local court, not MoneyClaim, it is in fact ended, happens when a refund has occurred they said, they mentioned I do not have to go to the hearing, woohoo!
So that email was not bogus.

In my ignorance I did not file the witness statement as you probably have guessed...
I got worried, and thought this was going to be quite damaging for me.
So... this is quite a relief for me.

Thank you all very much for your help!

It makes no sense at all though, does it. The email in your first post is odd.

You don't think some 'helpful' person in your household has paid it behind your back?