Gladstones - CCJ letter advice please

levitron

Need some advice on how to handle this going forward. A bit overwhelmed at the moment reading through everything and I'm kind of lost.

Background:

• 15th December 2016, was served a parking charge notice (PCN) by "Parking & Property Management Ltd" (P&P). The area was not marked properly (it was a new build site) and I was advised incorrectly by the building's concierge.
• 24th December 2016 I appealed via the company's appeal form on their website (I would post the URL of the form I used by I can't because I'm a newbie).
• I used a template from MSE to submit my appeal. Never received anything back from P&P, not even an acknowledgement of receipt of my appeal.
• Feb 2016, moved house.
• Upon checking my old post at the old flat, I discovered a CCJ notice letter, and then a CCJ letter (issued 10 Mar 2017).

I'm now at a loss for what to do. I am past the 14 days where I should be submitting the acknowledgement letter.

What are my options? Should I pay the amount noted on the CCJ letter to avoid further degradation of my situation? If paying means I avoid affecting my credit report, then I may consider paying up unfortunately.

:embarasse Would love to hear from anyone who has advice for me. :embarasse
I hope I didn't break any forum rules, but if I have, apologies in advance.

Coupon-mad

If you mean a court claim form issued on 10.3.17 then acknowledge it right now, tonight, register for MCOL on the Govt Gateway site and follow the example shown in post #2 about the NEWBIES thread.

Yes it's late but only by a few days - maybe if you acknowledge NOW and bang a defence in by Monday (with some research of other Gladstones defences over the weekend) you will find it all gets lodged as ''in'' at the CCBC and the game will be on, for a Summer hearing at your local court.

We win pretty much every single case, tons of examples on dozens of Gladstones threads here and lots of into in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread at the top, start there and tell us when you have done the AOS on MCOL.

levitron

Wow, that was super quick! Thanks for that

I've just completed the AOS on MCOL. Looks like I have to do some homework ASAP!

Coupon-mad

Show us your draft defence. Was this at your own flat, as you said:

The area was not marked properly (it was a new build site) and I was advised incorrectly by the building's concierge.

There are shedloads of decent defences to read and plagiarise from here, written by victims like you. If it was your flat, search specifically for:

Gladstones Jopson Home Guard Pace defence


HTH

levitron

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Show us you draft defence. Was this at your own flat, as you said:



There are shedloads of decent defences to read and plagiarise from here, written by victims like you. If it was your flat, search specifically for:

Gladstones Jopson Home Guard Pace defence

and read this:


HTH

This was not at my own flat. This was at a restaurant/cafe.

I've been reading up on various defenses and they're all quite long and I felt that they didn't really fit into my situation. Are there any that you can think of that can get me started as a "framework" of sorts?

Coupon-mad

Search the forum and change to 'show POSTS' for Gladstones defence PPM

peter_the_piper

Make sure you have updated driving license and V5 for the car. It won't affect your current problem but will prevent others.

The_Deep

Looks like I have to do some homework ASAP!

You will indeed. If you want to avoid paying these scammers you will have to do a lot of reading. Think of the rules of rugby, then double it.

levitron

I've drafted up a defense, taking the line of:

a) The Claimant is not the actual landowner so they cannot act on the landowner's behalf in the court.
b) Improper signage

I had thought I had a copy of the signage on record, but it looks like I may have to return to the site to get this on photographic record.

Here's the actual location of where my vehicle was parked and where the "lines" were laid out (and also where I had been given the PCN). I wasn't sure how to incorporate this - perhaps under the "bad signage" line of reasoning?

h**p://i.imgur.c*m/8besDxl.jpg

^ sorry for that, can't post links/images since I'm a newbie here.

Please forgive me for my poor construction of the defense. I tried to put together bits and pieces, but the depth of my understanding on old cases and judgements is quite low IMHO.

As always, thanks in advance for the advice.

*****************************************************************

Defense

1. The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant.

2. It is believed that the Claimant has no standing to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The claimant has failed to establish their legal right to bring a claim either as the landholder or the agent of the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Parking and Property Management. The Defendant claims that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case.

3. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

4. The Claimant might argue that the Supreme Court’s decision is Parking Eye v. Beavis is
applicable. The Defendant will argue that the present case meets none of the conditions that the Supreme Court stated were required for a parking notice to be exempt from the well-established principle that penalty charges cannot be recovered. The main difference is that the Supreme Court determined that, in a retail park, there was a public interest in ensuring a turnover of visitors that justified a disincentive to overstay. There is clearly no such interest in a third party attempting to impose conditions in a <non retail> where there is no turnover of visitors and the defendant’s vehicle was not in pay-and-display car parking. Moreover the defendant has provided proof of both being the customer to the <non retail> and holding a valid visitor permit. At no point did the defendant enter into any contract with the third party.

5. The Claimant did not display clear signs within the site that were capable of being read and/or form a contract.
a) There is no prominent signage at the entrance of the parking area.
b) Signs are raised high up with small text which is difficult to read.
d) The amount of charge is non prominent in the wording on the signage.

The signage did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver and the notices do not provide the 'adequate notice' of the parking charge which is mandatory under Schedule 4 of the POFA.

6. The claimant has not properly followed the IPC code of practice regarding enforcement on new sites. The IPC code clearly states that Where there is any change in the terms and conditions materially affecting the motorist you may place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required. It has been established with the <non retail> management that the terms and conditions have been newly established, and resulting in numerous complaints to the management of the claimant.

Coupon-mad

h**p://i.imgur.c*m/8besDxl.jpg

^ sorry for that, can't post links/images since I'm a newbie here.

Maybe someone can convert that link for you. I can't on this PC.

Later on, in your evidence, can you prove this:

It has been established with the <non retail> management that the terms and conditions have been newly established, and resulting in numerous complaints to the management of the claimant.

levitron

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Later on, in your evidence, can you prove this:

I've been in communication with the restaurant management, and in their email reply to me, they did indicate that there have been issues with this at the site. This is what they said:

We as owners of the restaurants had to pay our own parking fine back in Dec 2016. I believe we parked at the exact same spot. Back then we had spoken to the management of the development and they insisted that there are plenty of signs put up. After reading the signs carefully on the lamp post, we have to agree that it does clearly states that the whole area is private land. We brought it up to the landowners and they too had no authority to ask the management company to withdraw our parking fine. So, we paid it.

I'm not sure if this is applicable or submissible as evidence.