Further letter from Gladstones Solicitors

Curly_girly

Is direct email correspondence usual? Is it better to respond by formal letter??

[Deleted User]

The Letter or Response is exactly that - you respond to their case. However, the need to prepare your response stops short of helping the Claimant to improve theirs, so there is a balance to be struck.

I'm inclined to agree that your previous letter does create something of an uphill battle for you to go to Court and do anything other than admit that you were the driver. At the very least, the balance of probabilities currently favours the Claimant on that point.

What you now need to ask yourself is

(a) whether the signage is that poor you can defend it - the Court may not necessarily be persuaded by the IPC and BPA guidelines that recommend extra effort to bring changes in parking enforcement to the consumer's attention; and
(b) whether if you were lumbered with a bill for the ticket (say, the £100 max) you would also be lumbered with the random extra miscellaneous £60 that they now seek. In respect of the latter, i'd be inclined to say no.

I'd possibly avoid getting sucked in to sending emails because of the risk of sending it instantly without re-reading it and/or stopping to take further advice. Further, post is official service, whereas email is not (unless agreed otherwise) for each document sent.

One wheel touching some markings is unlikely to be determinative.

Parking Eye v Beavis has application in fewer cases than the parking companies would have you believe. And, for what it's worth, whilst the charge in that case was not a penalty, the penalty rule was engaged - another day, another court, a different amount in a different car park and it could very easily have been decided differently.

Coupon-mad

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?

No, it admits you were the driver, which helps you focus your defence in that honest way. It merely favours them in terms of them saying you were the driver - OK, so you were.

It sounds like the defence will be boosted by proof such as the intervention of the local Councillor:

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 no longer operate on this site and the restaurant causing all the issues has closed.

And the signs will not have quantified the 'added costs' as a sum that you could have 'agreed'.

And - posters here win, almost every time, when they stick around and take advice from defence through to WS and evidence stage, and before their hearing. Only one lost and no risk of paying any huge sum even if a case is lost.

Well worth fighting. Why not get the local Councillor or MP involved to support you, or at least contact and ask that Councillor for the evidence about signage being woeful and copies of his complaint letters (redacted of any personal data of other victims)?

Please complain to your MP, now is the time to support the Bill going through Parliament:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73050249#Comment_73050249

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/parliament-discuss-unfair-parking.html

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72971855#Comment_72971855