Gladstones Letter Ref: Private Parking Ticket in Company Vehicle

Coupon-mad

Harry68 wrote: »

This thread is from 2013:

...and is far too old.

Why not read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread (updated today, regardless of the date I started it). You will need it, to join the long list of posters who have beaten Gladstones in small claims hearings, which will happen. The same thread and post tells you how to respond to a LBCCC.

You have a defence. Don't worry. Nothing bad can happen, no CCJ or anything even if you lost at a hearing, as long as you don't ignore court papers or miss a court deadline/paperwork.

Later on once you are defending a claim - because you will have to, but we win them - it will help you if the neighbour will happily sign a Witness Statement, confirming that their lease DOES NOT require them to display a permit, and that they have a right to a space, and that they authorised you to park in it that day (they then state the date and the vehicle VRN and your name, and state that the above is a statement of truth, then they sign & date it).

You could get that NOW, in advance, and attach it to your response to Gladstones and tell them to get stuffed as residents have primacy of contract and you were fully authorised to park by the flat owner, under their lease rights of way and easements. Permits are not an obligation in any leases on site.

The leases don't mention parking, but they will include rights of way and easements, as modern leases imply, if not expressly state. And there is no mention of a £100 charge to park, nor any relevant obligation to display a permit, is there?

So, the lease takes precedence and residents have the right to allow cars to be parked in their spaces unfettered, unharassed and uncharged. Why is anyone putting up with this scam protection racket from ex-clampers, what use is it?

In April this year I parked my car in a neighbours space using their permit. This is a residential street who have had a private firm (PCM) operating there for approximately 2 years. I had lived there for approximately 15 years but the lease is in my Mother's name and having checked it does not mention anything about the right to parking in the street.

Since the introduction of PCM I had been parking my car in a neighbouring street to avoid tickets but as I had recently had surgery which made it difficult for me to walk I used a neighbour's space acquiring their permit. Unfortunately, during the night the permit had fallen from the dashboard and on to the seat. When I came out the next morning I had a ticket. I've taken photos of my car where you can clearly see the permit through the window on the seat.

When are the Managing Agents going to kick PCM out then? Have you all tried? Why are they even there - no point, no use, no service. Get them sacked.

And complain to your MP about them as well, and ask the MP to support the Bill going through Parliament in 2018:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73128070#Comment_73128070

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73048725#Comment_73048725

Then come back, fired up, when you get your claim form from Gladstones. But try to engage them in some letters/emails first to head them off this month, to delay the claim until after 1st October:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73134545#Comment_73134545

After that date they'll find their robo-claims much harder. So engage them this month, in requests for photos and evidence, all sorts, reply to everything they send, asking something else, showing them the Witness statement from the neighbour and/or extracts from the neighbour's lease/AST. Ask for copies of all letters sent, and photos of the signs. Keep Gladstones busy.

Harry68

Thank you for everybody's help so far. As I have no experience in this matter I must admit I am struggling slightly. I have read the newbies thread and in particular post 2 where I have seen the draft letter. I have concerns about using some of it as I feel that during the appeal stage I have already admitted to being the driver at the time.

Never the less I am planning to use a lot of the draft letter and refer to the fact I had the permission of the lease owner for the space quoting what you have already stated.

If anybody thinks I should ensure I add anything else in please let me know. If not thanks for all your help so far and I am sure I will dive back in for more assistance when the roboclaim comes through.

Would it be safe for me to copy and paste my letter to them in this forum before sending? I would like an expert's approval if possible.

Thanks

Redx

yes you can and should post the draft letter, redacted, for comments, that is the whole idea of "help" on here, you do the groundwork and accept the critique once posted

we know you dont have previous experience , very few do , so its totally expected and we would worry if you did know what you were doing and still needed help, so we expect that you are in the dark and we help accordingly where we can

if you read similar threads about own space issues you will see that the advice tends to follow being the driver or owner or lessee of the space and to "come clean" and rely on the issues surrounding primacy of contract etc, not POFA2012

read the posts by member BARGEPOLE as he has commented on exactly those issues and how best to argue a case based on "own space" , primacy of the lease , JOPSON and other legalities , ie:- not hiding behind POFA2012 but saying you have primacy , nothing in the lease about parking , freedom from harassment , peaceful enjoyment etc

bear in mind that as the vehicle is leased we do recommend that people take responsibility to stop the PPC chasing the lease company or owner and them paying it and charging the lessee fees etc

Harry68

I have taken parts of other responses to these letters and tried to use them where I could. I have amended them to make it relevant to my situation. There are a few cases where I have referred to both Gladstones and PCM - do I need to? I would be grateful for any advice and please do make me aware if I am not making sense, using out of date information or missing important points (I'm sure you will). My response is as follows:


Ref: Your letter before claim re PCN (reference 1****.***)

This is a formal response to your 'Letter before Court Action'. I remind you of the overriding objective and - if your company really has a 'Legal Department' - then the qualified staff member will recognise that Parking Control Management has no cause of action in law, but that I do.

You have failed to supply any photographs or evidence of the driver, nor even the 'contract' (in this case presumably a sign), nor have you set out clearly, the basis upon which you are attempting to hold me liable. You have specifically stated in your letter that ‘In order to avoid any further action you should pay the full amount outstanding within 14 days of this letter’ and drawn up a draft claim form in my name, whilst failing to point out what this matter is for and who is liable.

I would like to bring to your attention that the only occasion I am aware of receiving a Parking Charge Notice I had full permission from the lease holder of the space who is available to give evidence should it be required. As I was fully authorised to park in the space by the lease holder and residents have primacy of contract under their lease rights of way and easements I would like to bring to your attention that I am wrongfully being harassed for debt that I do not owe. Permits are not an obligation in any leases on site. Regardless of these circumstances I still displayed a permit out of respect and during the night it had fallen on to the passenger seat. I have photographic evidence with date and time stamp which shows you can still clearly read this permit through the windscreen. However, the lease takes precedence in this situation as residents have the right to allow cars to be parked in their spaces unfettered, unharassed and uncharged. I would refer Gladstones Solicitors to a 2016 case at the County Court at Croydon, C6GF14F0 between Pace Recovery and Mr N where it was found that a parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

I would also like to bring to your attention that any Parking Charge Notice issued in a residential area should be a legitimate pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification. Parking Control Management rejected this information during an appeal and referred me to the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, 2015. However, it was established in Jopson v Homeguard, 2016 that the ParkingEye v Beavis case does not apply to residential parking and that any issue of a charge that does not reflect a pre-estimate of loss (without commercial justification) would actually be a disguised penalty and therefore, cannot be issued.

Should you seek to proceed with a claim I will apply for it to be struck out, due to CPR Part 3.4:
(a) that Gladstones Solicitors’s and/or Parking Control Management's statement of case will disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim;
(b) that the statement of case will be an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; and
(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.
Breaches of the Pre-action Practice Direction (“the PD”):
Paras 3, 8 and 12 of the PD set out its purpose, which is to primarily to avoid litigation (para 8) by laying down a procedure which allows the parties to:
- understand each other’s positions (para 3)
- make decisions about how to proceed (para 3)
- explore settlement/consider ADR (para 3)
- support the “efficient management” of any proceedings and reduce costs (para 3)
- “stocktake” and review their respective positions after following the PD by exchanging information, to see if proceedings can be avoided and to “at least” narrow the issues (para 12).

Paras 6(a) & (c) oblige a Claimant to enter into a meaningful dialogue with a Defendant at an early stage by imposing specific obligations to:
- explain the claim in a Letter before Claim, and
- provide relevant core documents.

The only 'core document' you have enclosed is a mock-up of a claim form in the name of myself, the registered keeper. This will be drawn to the attention of the presiding Judge at the County Court Business Centre and then at my local Court, should a spurious claim of yours manage to get that far.
I expect Gladstone Solicitors and/or Parking Control Management to now cancel this 'parking charge' and admit its mistake in attempting to wrongfully issue me with a penalty disguised as a parking charge 'debt' and for stating that I could be liable for escalated costs/legal fees. As you will be aware (or Wright Hassall can explain to you), the general costs rule in Small Claims is that there is no costs order.

However, in support of my own counter-claim, I must remind you that under CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g):

''costs can be awarded where a party behaves unreasonably''.

I refer Civil Enforcement to paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct:
''a party who has not complied with its pre-action obligations can be ordered to pay costs (even if the party has succeeded in its claim/defence) and there is also a power to remit/increase interest.''

I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that the charge is cancelled. Should you fail to cancel this PCN and/or pursue a baseless claim without supplying any evidence of any breach of a relevant contract or relevant obligation, or photographs, or the contract, you may consider this adequate notice of my intention to sue Parking Control Management and/or Gladstones Solicitors, for the significant distress your actions have caused to a vulnerable family.

All letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court.

Finally, I will also submit that you have hereby been informed by this letter, that the driver in the vehicle that day had been the subject of operative surgery in a period extremely close to receiving this parking charge and was unable to walk without the use of aids.

I need not explain further, other than to point out the fact that a person who is unable to walk without the use of aids meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 (EA). Should you fail to cancel the charge, Gladstones Solicitors, Parking Control Management - and the person making the decision to proceed with a claim, whose name must appear on your letter of reply, along with their reasons for disregarding the EA - will be held corporately and personally liable for a failure to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled person. This will add sufficient costs as I will rightfully claim for discrimination. On this matter I would like to draw your Legal Department's attention to a landmark 2017 judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 - Blamires v LGO which included a four figure claim for discrimination - in terms of the sum sought in compensation for distress and harassment under the EA.

I reserve the right to include your client (landowner/agent) in any claim made, since that party remains jointly and severally liable for the conduct of its agents on their land.

Coupon-mad

Gladstones are solicitors, so change this:

This is a formal response to your 'Letter before Court Action'. I remind you of the overriding objective and am certain that any honest firm of solicitors [STRIKE]- if your company really has a 'Legal Department' - then the qualified staff member[/STRIKE] will recognise that Parking Control Management has no cause of action in law, but that I do.

No they haven't (the bit crossed out):

You have failed to supply any photographs or evidence of the driver, nor even the 'contract' (in this case presumably a sign), nor have you set out clearly, the basis upon which you are attempting to hold me liable. You have specifically stated in your letter that ‘In order to avoid any further action you should pay the full amount outstanding within 14 days of this letter’ [STRIKE]and drawn up a draft claim form in my name[/STRIKE], whilst failing to point out what this matter is for and who is liable.

[STRIKE]The only 'core document' you have enclosed is a mock-up of a claim form in the name of myself, the registered keeper. This will be drawn to the attention of the presiding Judge at the County Court Business Centre and then at my local Court, should a spurious claim of yours manage to get that far.[/STRIKE]

Errrm...no Wright Hassall involvement here, you've copied this from a CEL case!

I expect Gladstone Solicitors and/or Parking Control Management to now cancel this 'parking charge' and admit its mistake in attempting to wrongfully issue me with a penalty disguised as a parking charge 'debt' and for stating that I could be liable for escalated costs/legal fees. As you will be aware [STRIKE](or Wright Hassall can explain to you)[/STRIKE], the general costs rule in Small Claims is that there is no costs order.

Don't do a counter-claim, you have no grounds IMHO:

However, [STRIKE]in support of my own counter-claim[/STRIKE], I must remind you that under CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g):

Don't threaten to sue them, this makes no sense in your case:

I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that the charge is cancelled. Should you fail to cancel this PCN and/or pursue a baseless claim without supplying any evidence of any breach of a relevant contract or relevant obligation, or photographs, or the contract, I will immediately seek for the claim to be struck out, for want of any cause of action and failure to supply any contract details, terms, photographs or facts prior to court proceedings. [STRIKE]you may consider this adequate notice of my intention to sue Parking Control Management and/or Gladstones Solicitors, for the significant distress your actions have caused to a vulnerable family.[/STRIKE]

The rest looks fine, and it's good to inform them before any claim proceeds, that the driver had a mobility impairment (in fact I'd use those words here instead):

I need not explain further, other than to point out the fact that a person with an ongoing mobility impairment [STRIKE]who is unable to walk without the use of aids[/STRIKE] meets the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 (EA).

Harry68

Thank you ever so much for responding so quick. I will make these changes and send off tomorrow first class with proof of delivery. I really appreciate your help.

Harry68

Also do I need to remove anything from this post?

KeithP

Harry68 wrote: »

Thank you ever so much for responding so quick. I will make these changes and send off tomorrow first class with [STRIKE]proof of delivery[/STRIKE] free certificate of posting. I really appreciate your help.

See above.

Harry68

Morning everyone,

I have received a second letter from Gladstones which states the following:

We have previously written to you requesting settlement of a parking charge. As you will already know, due to the absence of payment or a valid appeal against the charge, we are instructed to recover the total amount due to our client as shown above.

As you have not either made payment or contacted us in respect of the charge, we may now be instructed to issue legal proceedings against you in the County Court. To prevent such action, we invite you to make payment immediately or contact us confirming your proposals in respect of this debt.

In order to avoid any further action you should pay the full amount outstanding within 7 days of this letter. You can make payment at https://www.************.com or by calling 0*********.

Please note: The additional costs associated with issuing a claim and the subsequent potential enforcement action could be as follows (these figures are for illustration purposes only and would only apply in the event of Judgement being obtained and subsequently enforced).

Claim issue fee: £25
Solicitor's costs for issue of claim: £50
Judgement costs: £25
Warrant issue fee: £100
Solicitor's cost for issue of warrant: £2.25

It is important that you understand that if a judgement is registered against you then this could seriously affect your chances of obtaining credit in the future as this information can be made available to any interested parties via the Register of Judgements, Orders and Fines, and will remain there for 6 years.

If you are unsure about anything contained within this letter, you should seek advice from a solicitor or contact one of the following organisations who may be able to help you:

National Debtline
Consumer Credit Counselling Service
Citizens Advice
COmmunity Legal Advice

Yours sincerely,

Glastones Solicitors


They dated this 3 days after I sent my response however, I did not receive this letter until 7 days after the supposed date they have written on the letter.

My initial thought is to respond stating the following:

I have already written a response and they have failed to acknowledge what has been asked of them - this was sent 3 days prior to them responding to me.
The date they claim to have sent the letter and the date I received the letter were 7 days apart.
7 days seems a short amount of time to request a response (I could have been on holiday).
As well as this attach a copy of the original letter and get a free certificate of posting again.

Could anyone confirm whether this is the right thing to do in this circumstance and whether I should include any additional info.

Thanks

nosferatu1001

Jut state that,d espite their assertions in their letter dated, X, you responded on Y that was deemed served on them before the supposed date this letter was sent.

State you position is unchanged