Newbie query re Ethical/Gladstones/DebtRecovery Plus

Axotyl99

Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere on the forum, but I couldn't find anything related to the situation where the parking charge was paid, and there was no overstay. This concerns a private car park. (I have read the relevant sticky, and still feel my case is different, although I'm bound to be shot down).

Facts are: July '16 received 'contractual breach charge' from Ethical. I'd parked correctly, bought a ticket for the correct time, but ticket fell off windscreen (poor adhesive, hot day), but their argument is that it wasn't displayed correctly. I have the ticket, and it was sent as part of my appeal to Ethical.

This has happened before, and they had cancelled the ticket on a similar occasion.

Their machine, of course, has a record of correct payment, so their only argument is that the ticket was not displayed correctly.

I understand from the lessees of the car park there is no written contact between them and Ethical, they do not receive any parking income, it is totally managed by Ethical. I understand this is not unusual.

I appealed to Ethical, it was rejected. Since then a fairly continual stream of demands, and the 'fine' has increased in steps to £160, culminating in a letter from Gladstones requesting payment to be made to DebtRecoveryPlus or that their client (Ethical) has the option to proceed in the 'appropriate Civil Court'.

A 'magistrate friend' has said she it would be laughed out of her court, and I should sue them for harassment. A solicitor friend has advised me to ignore their requests.

Opinion by a barrister (online legal forum) was their only claim is for what Ethical have lost financially, which is not easy to understand if the parking charge was paid for and they had proof of payment (their electronic machine) and there was no overstay.

Ethical have said they are relying on the Nov'15 Supreme Court decision, which I can't see is relevant in my case.

Any advice would be appreciated, as I have no intention of paying up.

Umkomaas

A 'magistrate friend' has said she it would be laughed out of her court, and I should sue them for harassment.

Your magistrate friend is right (and wrong). Wrong as it would never be a Mags Court dealing with this (it's a civil case, not criminal) Right - it would be laughed out as if it slipped through the net, they'd be sent away if they turned up.

Perhaps she'll work with you to develop your 'harassment' case, because the bar is set very high, and a few irritating letters from a PPC and debt collector are unlikely to see you being able to jump high enough. Put that back to her and look together at the key 'harassment' case of Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd and see how high that bar is.

A solicitor friend has advised me to ignore their requests.

Your Solicitor is also right (and wrong). Wrong on the basis that this should not have been ignored as it could have been beaten at POPLA when it all started in 2016 - too late now. Right as it's now at debt collector stage and can be safely ignored. But do not ignore a Letter Before Action or real court papers.

Opinion by a barrister (online legal forum) was their only claim is for what Ethical have lost financially, which is not easy to understand if the parking charge was paid for and they had proof of payment (their electronic machine) and there was no overstay.

Debatable. The Beavis case at The Supreme Court in November 2015 all but put paid to that argument (especially if used as a primary argument in the Small Claims Court), but a pay and display case was seen as not a complex arrangement and could be argued.

Are you likely to have to test the argument in the Small Claims Court?

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Ethical_Group.html

What do you think?

beamerguy

Axotyl99 wrote: »

Apologies if this is discussed elsewhere on the forum, but I couldn't find anything related to the situation where the parking charge was paid, and there was no overstay. This concerns a private car park. (I have read the relevant sticky, and still feel my case is different, although I'm bound to be shot down).

Facts are: July '16 received 'contractual breach charge' from Ethical. I'd parked correctly, bought a ticket for the correct time, but ticket fell off windscreen (poor adhesive, hot day), but their argument is that it wasn't displayed correctly. I have the ticket, and it was sent as part of my appeal to Ethical.

This has happened before, and they had cancelled the ticket on a similar occasion.

Their machine, of course, has a record of correct payment, so their only argument is that the ticket was not displayed correctly.

I understand from the lessees of the car park there is no written contact between them and Ethical, they do not receive any parking income, it is totally managed by Ethical. I understand this is not unusual.

I appealed to Ethical, it was rejected. Since then a fairly continual stream of demands, and the 'fine' has increased in steps to £160, culminating in a letter from Gladstones requesting payment to be made to DebtRecoveryPlus or that their client (Ethical) has the option to proceed in the 'appropriate Civil Court'.

A 'magistrate friend' has said she it would be laughed out of her court, and I should sue them for harassment. A solicitor friend has advised me to ignore their requests.

Opinion by a barrister (online legal forum) was their only claim is for what Ethical have lost financially, which is not easy to understand if the parking charge was paid for and they had proof of payment (their electronic machine) and there was no overstay.

Ethical have said they are relying on the Nov'15 Supreme Court decision, which I can't see is relevant in my case.

Any advice would be appreciated, as I have no intention of paying up.

Your 'magistrate friend' maybe correct but has a lack of
understanding about the county court where it is a lottery with
judges making different decisions than other judges.

The Beavis case was all about "unfair charges" and NOT a ticket
fallen from a windscreen.
Ethical are talking out of the place where the sun don't shine

DRP are junky debt collectors using the pimped out letterhead
of Gladstones who in their own right are highly incompetent

Ignore the DRP utter rubbish and if a real claim is received, come
back here. You paid, you can prove it, judges do not like
claims about rubbish even though the ticket fell off.

Gladstones are well known to the courts for their bad behaviour

waamo

I will be the one to break the bad news to you. It's not unique. This crops up pretty much daily.

Redx

waamo wrote: »

I will be the one to break the bad news to you. It's not unique. This crops up pretty much daily.

as above
, hundreds of times per annum on here

like post #4 of the NEWBIES sticky thread , and

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

gladstones and drp have been done to death on here , so as mentioned above , it crops up daily

Axotyl99

Invaluable advice, guys, much appreciated.

I particularly liked the link showing Ethical has issued around 14,800 tickets, and 1 court case in 3 years....

[Deleted User]

FWIW I agree with the advice that there is no financial loss for which the Claimant can sue.

Where I differ is that this will not stop you receiving automated template correspondence +/- each month from a case management system designed to push this to court if no payment is made.

Unless you engage with the court papers once those come, you risk a default judgment. So, by all means ignore DRP etc but keep an eye out for any proceedings and respond promptly.

If you get a proper letter of claim, I would respond only to point out

1. There is no loss
2. You will seek unreasonable costs as claim should not be pursued
3. Invite them to discontinue.

Ethical Parking Co.? Sounds like an oxymoron.

Axotyl99

Thank you, that all makes sense. However, I'm slightly concerned regarding responding to court papers.

I'm abroad quite often for more than 2 weeks at a time. I'm not keen to engage, but a (recorded?) letter to inform them of this might be a sensible precaution.

However, this could get tedious, particularly as I understand they can continue their threats for 5 years.

Could their 'business model' be based on replying on default judgements? Would that figure appear in the apparent court cases being reported as 1 in approx. 14,000?

Maybe one should be proactive and counter with a harassment claim?

[Deleted User]

If you receive a letter of claim, you can write to the solicitors nominating your preferred address for service of proceedings. I. E. Before the claim is issued. If they persist in sending to your home address from where you are absent, it would not be validly served.

Any nominated address would have to be a friendly lawyer or a work address (assuming you have a trusted colleague who can let you know it arrives and/or complete an acknowledgement of service form) as the court rules don't allow you to request a claim form is served anywhere other than to a lawyer or to a residential or principal business address

Umkomaas

Maybe one should be proactive and counter with a harassment claim?

That bar is set very high. There have been no private parking charge cases that have been successful. For a comparison as to what sanctionable harassment is, check out the landmark 'Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd'.

Is there no one at home who can alert you to a (unlikely) receipt if court papers? Once court papers are received most of the work/response from your end can be undertaken electronically.

Paradoxically, warning the PPC that you are regularly abroad and unable to deal with any court papers, might encourage them to issue in the hope of a default judgment - then you'll have a bigger mess to unravel, from wherever you are in the world.

Axotyl99

Our postings crossed.

In my previous post I was musing on the possibility that their business model depended, in part, on court orders not being correctly replied to. And that may not be reflected in the 1 in approx. 14,000 court case incidents for that company.

I'm not sure whether a farm in Kenya would be accepted as my alternative address....

Is 14 days a standard limit on replying to court papers?