Cloned Car + CPM Parking Fine

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Loadsofchildren123

Castle wrote: »

@Loadsofchildren123
If Gladstones/UKCPM are chasing the company then I don't think Data Protection breaches or harassment will come into it.

Oops, yes, you're right. But has OP identified himself/did company name him as driver, in which case they are writing to him personally and not to the company? If the answer to that is yes then he has those claims (sorry if you're a she, I'm making the age old assumption you're a he). If this is still all going via the company then I assume a company has no data protection/harassment rights (although I haven't researched this and don't know the answer for sure).


The point about the court location also depends on whether they are threatening to sue OP or the company. If the company, it goes to PPC's local court. If the OP, it goes to the OP's local court.


OP you do not need a lawyer. This point was mooted simply because you may live a great distance away and the costs involved in having to travel hours to and from a court nowhere near you might have an impact on your thinking.


Your WS can be equally as simple. An explanation of how you one day received a letter out of the blue saying you'd parked your car in x. How confused you were because you'd never been there. Where you were on the day and any evidence you have of that. You wrote to the PPC and they sent you photos. The minute you saw them it was obvious to you this wasn't your car. Photographs of the two cars side by side with the differences circled and listed underneath.
Car A (your car)
GB on the left of number plate
Car B (cloned car)
No GB on number plate


A:
No badge on front grille
B:
S8 badge on front grille



A:
Name of garage under registration extends between letter and number [3]


B:
Name of garage under registration extends between letter [T] and number [3]


A:
Wing mirrors are [white]
B:
Wing mirrors are [black]



A:
Inside of car: no jellybean hanging thing
B:
Inside of car: jellybean mirror hanging thing [or whatever the word is]



Any other differences

Edit:
I wrote the comments under each car like a table, but the formatting didn't come out well, but hopefully you can see what I was trying to do.
A bit like a Daily Mail Spot the Difference competition entry.


All the times you wrote to them telling them it wasn't you. How you went to the police and to the DVLA and what the DVLA did (police didn't give you a crime ref as advised not a crime against you per se).


How harassing you have found the letters. How aggressive they are, threatening CCJs and scare tactics. How every time one of those envelopes lands on your mat you are scared to open it. How you have written to them countless times asking them to stop and providing evidence of the cloning. Exhibit all of these.


To stop any potential argument you repainted your wingmirrors, if you do have old photos showing your car with the same white [or whatever] wingmirrors, exhibit these old photos.


It's the permanent features on the car that matter the most, not things like the jellybaby/bean hanging thing.


This should be easy. The only pain may be having to travel. This is why you need to set yourself up for seeking unreasonable behaviour costs.

Loadsofchildren123

Max for day off work is £95, plus parking and petrol at whatever the allowed rate is. Possibly a sarnie at lunchtime.
Litigant in person rate (if you do get unreasonable behaviour costs) is £19 per hour plus direct costs such as postage.
Start keeping a detailed record of all the time you are spending on this The more detailed the better.

Loadsofchildren123

You have the right to request a hearing on paper. It's risky as you can't control what lies they tell. But your case is so simple it may be a runner.


Anyway, this may be a non-issue if they are corresponding with you direct rather than the company. Are they?

The_Deep

Should not Gladstones be advising their client to walk away, is that not what solicitors do?

Loadsofchildren123

Sadly not: Gladstones do nothing other than draft and issue a roboclaim and then process the paperwork and issue a standard template WS, again all in a roboclaim press one button way. They make a very small standard charge for that. They don't charge enough to give bespoke advice and are not engaged to do anything other than standard work processing the paperwork. So I don't think they even read the letters.


The letters should still be written though, to set you up for unreasonable behaviour costs.

beamerguy

EasyPeasy223 wrote: »

Having it heard on paper is an interesting prospect, knowing that they probably wont even turn up. Even if they did, this must be such a straight cut case I don't think it would make a difference.

Heard on papers is a dodgy way to go, you will relying
on a faceless person who might not grasp the facts.

What will Gladstones do, as said we doubt if they read
anything. The sheer incompetence of Gladstones will
no doubt mean yet another whooping in court for them
and you should be in court to watch a judge whoop them.
I understand it is a great pleasure to watch, with their so
called hired guns wriggling all over the place

These make an interesting and very amusing read

Hopeless solicitors Gladstones bungle another case for Link Parking
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/06/hopeless-solicitors-gladstones-bungle.html

Latest Gladstones court debacle
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/01/latest-gladstone-court-debacle.html

Brian Hargreaves to claim back costs from Gladstones for incompetence
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/brian-hargreaves-to-claim-back-costs.html

Gladstones lose on behalf of District Enforcement
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/10/gladstone-lose-on-behalf-of-district.html

These are just a few so you know the incompetence
level you are dealing with

beamerguy

EasyPeasy223

May I suggest that you remove all comments about
whether it would be costly and indicating what you say

All the parking monkeys and their grinders read this forum
so best to keep your thoughts to yourself

EasyPeasy223

EasyPeasy223

May I suggest that you remove all comments about
whether it would be costly and indicating what you say

All the parking monkeys and their grinders read this forum
so best to keep your thoughts to yourself

Removing most now - just the OP and resurrection posts remaining, are they ok or should I just get rid of the whole lot?

beamerguy

EasyPeasy223 wrote: »

Removing most now - just the OP and resurrection posts remaining, are they ok or should I just get rid of the whole lot?

Great, as long as your posts do not give rise to their
nasty little minds you'll be fine

Anyways, you do have the blessing of the DVLA now

Playing the Gladstones game is just like your user name ..
easypeasy, they are so flawed it's unreal.

We don't talk so much about their flaws on here because
we are not their teachers