Further letter from Gladstones Solicitors

beamerguy

Curly_girly wrote: »

I would if I knew how to do it?

The text in my original threead is word for word.

It is important that the letterhead of Gladstones is seen

Where are you in the UK

Curly_girly

Sorry I'm a techno-phobe and have no idea how to upload the scanned letter.

beamerguy

Curly_girly wrote: »

Sorry I'm a techno-phobe and have no idea how to upload the scanned letter.

Do you have a PC or laprop

Coupon-mad

Curly_girly wrote: »

Do I need to mention anything about the camera that took the photo of the car as it wasn't an ANPR?

Maybe, without saying who was driving.

It wasn't a predatory employee lurking behind a bush then swooping to take quick photos within 2 minutes flat then running away to later post a PCN, was it? Always worth mentioning predatory practices which are against the IPC CoP (which Gallstones Directors wrote...).

Curly_girly

No from what I can gather from others it was the new owner of the restaurant on the site who was seen taking photos on his mobile phone and sending them to UK CPM Ltd. I've parked on that site for 10 years and never had a problem and it is a free car park.
The entrance signage went up following pressure from the LA (trading standards) but then was taken back down a few weeks later. There is still some signage left on the site but I understand they are no longer enforcing this and the restaurant has closed.

Curly_girly

yes I'm on a laptop

Curly_girly

Sorry for my ignorance. Why do you need to see the letterhead?

The_Deep

Elliott v Loake has been rubbished by so many Judges that I am surprised that the SRA have not jumped on it, it is lying to the public, a fact which I pointed out to them over a year ago.


This alone should be reason for this firm to be struck off.

beamerguy

Curly_girly wrote: »

Sorry for my ignorance. Why do you need to see the letterhead?

Hi again, the reason is for others to see that this is not a pimped
out letterhead being used by a worthless debt collector.

In view of what you said above, this is clearly a self ticket problem
whereby the restaurant owner was paid commission to take pictures
and send them to UK CPM
Whilst not illegal, it is borderline as to being ethical.

As Trading Standards have already been involved in this site.
you must show them them a copy of this letter from Gladstones.

The letter is menacing and threatening in that they quote cases
that has nothing to do with your situation.
For example, they refer to the "criminal case" of Elliot v Loake
which is inferring you are a criminal ?

Trading Standards are there to protect the public from false
claims and a letter to try to extort money from you

Send the letter coupon-mad has drafted for you as it is very
powerful and will show the idiots at Gladstones you know more
than they think you do.

Gladstones are a very incompetent firm of solicitors who lose in court often.

Let's see how they reply first. You have had 9 months of grief
from this ticket so it's now time to give them grief
It is vital that you show this Gladstones letter to Trading Standards
and depending on their reply a complaint to the SRA

When typing that letter, keep it professional and address
them as Gladstones

Dear Sirs,

Yours faithfully

Do not head it with ... "Without prejudice" as this is a letter
you will want a judge to see

Curly_girly

I have had some great advice on this forum, many thankks for all previous posts.I've now received yet another letter from GS as below.

Thank you for your correspondence, our apologies for the delay.

In your appeal made to our client (dated 18th October 2016) which is attached you stated that “if you believe I have committed a trespass”, “so my presence did not prevent the parking of other cars”, I saw no signage at the entrance where I parked”, “there I have not entered into a contract with you”, I now understand why the signage was not clear to me at the time of my visit” etc. It is therefore reasonable for our client to assume on the balance of probabilities from your own admission that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date the parking charge was incurred.
Unfortunately I was very naive when I wrote this letter last year and wasn’t aware of the parking forum at the time. Does this admit liability?

Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the above, our Client has complied with the provisions required to pursue the keeper of the vehicle. Attached to this correspondence is our clients postal parking charge notice and notice to keeper which were all sent within the prescribed periods as required by the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 to establish keeper liability.
Is this correct?

Our client’s signs contain a provision which states that enforcement may add additional costs which will be added to the value of the parking charge. This is also reflective of the cost of pursuing the debt which could have been better spent on other aspects of our clients business and is indicative of the cost of our referral.
This is in very small writing.

Our first correspondence in respect of parking charge notice was sent on 21 June 2017, where our system reflects the amount requested as being £160.

Our clients position is that the signs on the land are clear and unambiguous and that all motorists agree to the terms upon parking. If you can further expand upon your suggestion that a Local Authority became involved and substantiate your point we invite you to do so, so that we may understand one another’s position. In order to save time and cost for both parties this can be provided by email to – email address given.
I don't agree that the signage is clear. There hasn't been any enforcement on this car park until last year when CPM became involved. The signage that they put up was in exactly the same place as previous signage which as stated above was never enforced as I understand it was a different landowner. A local councillor became involved in this last year due to the number of complaints received from members of the public. This led to additional signage being put up at one of the entrances which was taken down a few weeks later. I also understand that CPM o longer operate on this site and the restaurant causing all the issues has closed. Do I send an email response with the information or do I keep it formal and send yet another letter with all responses? I'm surprised that they are suggesting direct email correspondence as reading many of the other threads this is unusual?

We do not agree that this case is easily distinguished from the Supreme Court Judgement of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 and the elements of the Judgement may be further expanded upon should this charge remain unpaid or an agreement not reached between our client and you.
Any advice on this?

Please also find photographic evidence of the parking charge. Not only is our Client’s sign within the vicinity of your vehicle, the ground where the vehicle is parked is also hatch-marked to further assist motorists in making them aware that parking is not permitted.
Unfortunately the rear wheel is on the hatched area. The hatchings were painted on by the previous shop owner again never enforced and I've parked in this area (not on the hatchings) for the last 10 years as have many other people.

You are being pursued for breach of contract as you failed to make payment within the relevant time frame. Beyond what our previous correspondence detailed regarding authority, any relevant evidence to the effect if authority will be provided when requested by the Court as at this stage it is our Client’s opinion it bears no relevance and without concession would be disproportionate to provide.

Your vehicle was found to be unauthorised to park and your correspondence mainly relates to procedural rather than substantive issues. If you have any further evidence regarding your authority to park on the land as shown, without concession we kindly request this is provided.

Similar to the authority as mentioned above evidence regarding ANPR equipment being serviced and maintained is not relevant to your liability for this parking charge.
That's because there wasn't one and I'm led to believe it was the then owner of the restaurant taking the photos and sending them to CPM.

In view of the above payment of £160 remains outstanding. In the event payment is not received within 14 days from the date of this letter our Client may elect to issue legal proceedings in order to facilitate recovery of this debt. Payments can be made etc…..

I received a LBA from GS a few months ago which wasn't compliant and I responded to it as per the advice on this forum. If this was going to Court would I not have received the papers by now instead of all these letters which seam to be dragging this out? Any advice would be gratefully received. Many thanks in advance.