Further letter from Gladstones Solicitors

Curly_girly

Help needed please. I received a letter before action from Gladstones with very little information on so having taken advice from the newbies thread I responded asking for more information as they couldn't assume that I had received all the relevant information that they referred to in their letter.
They have now responded with the following:
The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the registered keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption. You have been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver yet have failed to do so. Our client therefore concludes it more likely than not you were the driver.
Notwithstanding the above you are also pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 (the Act) which states
'the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle'
The relevant notices were sent in accordance with the act and you failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings (which is required under the act (paragraph 5 (2)
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sched 4 (para 2) states that the keeper means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle is parked which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed unless the contrary is proved to be the registered keeper.
Correspondence was sent t your registered address. You have given no reasonable explanation as to why you wouldn't have received this. However without concession even if the post wasn't received this would not impact your liability to pay. The correspondence was sent after you became liable.
Our client relies on the case of parkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the drivers action as prescribed therein.
The signs on the land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which you did the charge was properly incurred.
As the contract is between you and our client, our client does have the authority to enforce parking charges. Both VCS v HM Revenues and Customs (2013) an 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 any other 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 our client did have authority from the landowner to operate on the land.
Payment remains outstanding in the sum of £160 and can be made at ?? In the event that payment isn't made in the next 14 days further legal action will be taken.
your sincerely

Do I respond asking for further information as suggested in other threads. I want to contest the signage as it wasn't clear and this was proven when the LA got involved and additional signage was but up at one of the entrances. The amount also needs to be challenged as it was different on other correspondence.
Many thanks

beamerguy

Curly_girly wrote: »

Help needed please. I received a letter before action from Gladstones with very little information on so having taken advice from the newbies thread I responded asking for more information as they couldn't assume that I had received all the relevant information that they referred to in their letter.
They have now responded with the following:
The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the registered keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption. You have been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver yet have failed to do so. Our client therefore concludes it more likely than not you were the driver.
Notwithstanding the above you are also pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 (the Act) which states
'the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle'
The relevant notices were sent in accordance with the act and you failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings (which is required under the act (paragraph 5 (2)
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sched 4 (para 2) states that the keeper means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle is parked which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed unless the contrary is proved to be the registered keeper.
Correspondence was sent t your registered address. You have given no reasonable explanation as to why you wouldn't have received this. However without concession even if the post wasn't received this would not impact your liability to pay. The correspondence was sent after you became liable.
Our client relies on the case of parkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the drivers action as prescribed therein.
The signs on the land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which you did the charge was properly incurred.
As the contract is between you and our client, our client does have the authority to enforce parking charges. Both VCS v HM Revenues and Customs (2013) an 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 any other 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 our client did have authority from the landowner to operate on the land.
Payment remains outstanding in the sum of £160 and can be made at ?? In the event that payment isn't made in the next 14 days further legal action will be taken.
your sincerely

Do I respond asking for further information as suggested in other threads. I want to contest the signage as it wasn't clear and this was proven when the LA got involved and additional signage was but up at one of the entrances. The amount also needs to be challenged as it was different on other correspondence.
Many thanks

First question ....... who do they ask you to pay ????

Is this from T. Hawker ???

They are talking rubbish. Get ready to write a severe letter
to Trading Standards, we will help you with that

Curly_girly

They are asking me the RK to pay Gladstones solicitors at a .com address. The signature is just a squiggle and there is no name at the bottom of the letter.

Coupon-mad

Dear Gallstones,

I refer to your misleading template letter dated ../../17.

The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 is just that - a criminal case, as you say - and totally irrelevant to contract law. Gallstones is well aware of this fact, having seen dozens of Judges find that as fact.

Notwithstanding the above, your client is not entitled by any rule of law to conclude or assume that I was the driver, but you know that too. It is also within your own knowledge that your client is unlikely to have met the requirements for 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and the prescribed Notice to Keeper format and deadline, in order to hold the Registered Keeper of the vehicle liable, pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the Act).

Even if your client had complied with the Act, the maximum sum that the statute allows to be potentially recovered from a keeper, is the sum on any compliant and properly-given Notice to Keeper. Double recovery is disallowed, and the fluctuating escalated 'added costs' in the demands you and your client have sent are extortionate and unconscionable penalties in themselves, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield, where the inflated sum of £135 - which was well above the parking charge on signage - was deemed excessive and likely to be a penalty.

Your client would try to spout the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015, as you always do. Again, it is irrelevant to the facts of this case, and it can be fully distinguished. And once again, that is something that is within your personal knowledge but you appear to have forgotten that your first duty is to the Court.

The signs on the land are unclear, sparse and ambiguous and the driver would not have been bound by any contract. Unlike yourselves, the signage at the location is within my local knowledge and the signs were so woeful and causing so many complaints that the Local Authority became involved, forcing entrance signs to be added which were not there at the material time. You would know that, had you carried out any due diligence and bothered to obtain any facts and evidence from your client before harassing me with your standard rubbish.

The fact of the matter is, none of the signs have even been seen by your firm, and nothing about this case is in fact within your knowledge, but it is clear that you are intent on one of your usual predatory robo-claims. It is known that Gallstones do not come to this matter with clean hands, given the connection (that you have recently tried to artificially sever) between your firm's Directors, the IPC and the IAS, the so-called 'independent appeals service' which is nothing of the sort.

I believe that your letters fall far short of the professional standards required by the SRA. I shall therefore be using this exchange of letters as evidence in court and shall be reporting your company for breach of the following SRA code:

Chapter 11 O(11.1) you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity.

In addition, as you also operate the IAS I shall be reporting a breach of the SRA Conflict of interest code:

Chapter 3 Para O(3.4): you do not act if there is an own interest conflict or a significant risk of an own interest conflict.

Please advise your client that any court action will be vigorously defended.

yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

You may or may not like to change the 'Gallstones' x 3 to the right firm's name...

beamerguy

Curly_girly wrote: »

They are asking me the RK to pay Gladstones solicitors at a .com address. The signature is just a squiggle and there is no name at the bottom of the letter.

This is important

Could you scan and upload the letter to a free site like photobucket

Right now you cannot post a link here so use hxxp instead of http

We need to see it and the rubbish sent by Gladstones

Coupon-mad

It doesn't matter - a solicitor does not have to sign a letter with a name, they can just put 'GS' if they want. Solicitor's letters are often signed that way - perfectly normal, in conveyancing, litigation and all sorts.

beamerguy

Curly girly ... coupon-mad is right
But as this is a scam this now must be esculated.
Gladstones have been given enough rope, so much so, it's hanging time ...... scan and upload this letter please

Curly_girly

I'm tempted to leave it at Gallstones!
Wow what a response many thanks for this I'm more than happy to go with that. These people have made my life a misery for the last 9 months.
Do I need to mention anything about the camera that took the photo of the car as it wasn't an ANPR?

beamerguy

Curly_girly wrote: »

I'm tempted to leave it at Gallstones!
Wow what a response many thanks for this I'm more than happy to go with that. These people have made my life a misery for the last 9 months.
Do I need to mention anything about the camera that took the photo of the car as it wasn't an ANPR?

Gladstones are scammers. PERIOD

You must scan and upload this scam letter.
Ensure you redact your personal information

Nothing is off limits with the disgusting Gladstones

Curly_girly

I would if I knew how to do it?

The text in my original threead is word for word.