Gladstones Solicitors Letter Before Claim

hank1

Hi All,

Received a letter from Gladstones solicitors earlier in regards to a PCN issued at my own parking space (permit had blown off the dash). The ticket was initially issued by SIP Car Parks who are (supposedly) contracted by the landowner, Artisan to provide car park management services in the car park for the flats. I have ignored all correspondence with SIP, and tried to get the landowner to cancel, but they were being ****heads about the whole thing. Looking at the company, Artisan, it looks as if they're as scummy a bunch as SIP are.

I have prepared a response to the letter. I would appreciate any comments/help before I throw it Gladstone's way and hope they decide not to pursue it. Here is the Gladstone letter (link without spaces):

h t t p s:// ib b.co/gJ TN 8k

My response is below. I am trying to go off two main strands here. The first being legal permission to ticket my space (included in my rent), and the second being the validity of the LBCCC in terms of practice direction for pre-action conduct.

*********
Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to you as owner of the vehicle registration number: xxxxx in regards to a parking ticket issued on xxxxxx (PCN No: xxxxxx) from SIP Car Parks Limited.

I am not aware of any reason why this ticket should be issued. [VEHICLE REG] is authorized to park in this space by Artisan (the landowner).

The premise of ticketing a vehicle for not displaying a permit has the sole purpose of deterring people from parking within a space my vehicle is legally permitted to park in; i.e. SIP’s primary function is to monitor illegal car parking. There is a significant legal issue, despite what SIP’s signs in the car park may say, regarding ticketing a car which is permitted to park in this space. The deeds/lease of this property mention nothing about needing to display any sort of permit. This means I or anybody I permit have the right to enjoy this parking space. There is no obligation to display any sort of permit, and certainly no need to pay any sort of parking ‘fine’. The deeds/lease override any contract the management company may have with a parking company – this is known as primacy of contract.

It is the same wardens who regularly patrol the car park. They will already have seen this car parked in this space many times before. This is a deliberate attempt to recoup extra money outside of the legitimate interests of the business. Proof of permission to park and the relevant contracts can be provided upon request.

I refer to Practice Direction for Pre-action conduct paragraphs 3, 13 and 14, and request that “sufficient information” is provided before this can proceed to court.
**
Objectives of pre-action conduct and protocols
3. Before commencing proceedings, the court will expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information to—

(a) understand each other’s position;
(b) make decisions about how to proceed;
(c) try to settle the issues without proceedings;
(d) consider a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to assist with settlement;
(e) support the efficient management of those proceedings; and
(f) reduce the costs of resolving the dispute.
**
If you are planning on proceeding to the court stage, there is currently a non-compliance with the Practice Direction for Pre-action conduct as there is no mention of the ADR within the letter. In addition, I have not received a letter from SIP that their dispute resolution has ended. They are therefore breaking the law, when considering The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015:

“19(2) Where a trader has exhausted its internal complaint handling procedure when considering a complaint from a consumer relating to a sales contract or a service contract, the trader must inform the consumer, on a durable medium— (a) that the trader cannot settle the complaint with the consumer; (b) of the name and website address of an ADR entity which would be competent to deal with the complaint, should the consumer wish to use alternative dispute resolution; and (c) whether the trader is obliged, or prepared, to submit to an alternative dispute resolution procedure operated by that ADR entity”.

For this matter alone, I plan to refer this matter to Trading Standards.

In order to fully understand your position and to comply with the Pre-action conduct paragraph 3, I expect the following information to be provided if you intend to send through court papers.

1. What are the terms of the contract? (e.g. a copy of the sign)
2. What exactly was the charge for? (your letter before claim is not specific and it needs to be)
3. How was the contract offered and accepted?
4. Is the charge for (a) trespass, (b) breach or a (c) contractual charge.
- If (a) or (b) a breakdown is needed. If (c) a VAT invoice
5. Is keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4 being invoked or am I being pursued as the driver?
6. Are you pursuing me as (a) agent of the landowner, or as (b) principal?
- If (a) then authority from the landowner, (such as a redacted contract) is needed to demonstrate permission to operate on the leasehold space. (Note: if this cannot be demonstrated, it will be assumed SIP will be operating without permission in my space, and I will seek to reclaim my own costs for the collection of my data illegally from the DVLA)
7. Photographs of the vehicle without a permit displayed.

I am requesting SIP’s cooperation with your own legal insight as this will save both parties time, stress and further money. I may have to get legal assistance of my own to ensure I win this case, and I would be looking to recoup all my costs from the other side.

Yours faithfully,
**********

What are people's thoughts? Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated before I send this off.

KeithP

http://ibb.co/gJTN8k

Coupon-mad

What are people's thoughts? Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated before I send this off.

Glad to see your local Court is probably Manchester, where they understand the PPC scam and have seen off a number of Gladstones claims.

Are you sure your space isn't actually owned by your landlord, and not provided by Artisan at all? Or are you the flat owner (you mention a lease but also mention rent)?

This sounds like the place I helped someone with a claim over, where there are some pay & display bays, and he found out that his own landlord actually owned the allocated bay under a Deed, and it was nothing to do with Artisan H. The case was about this place:

https://julietwist.co.uk/developments/new-islington-manchester/albion-works/

And the poster was this person:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5566501

And they won their case, as we invariably do here, an he was awarded £170 in costs. I have his defence still...I wrote it for him off forum. It may help you. The Manchester Judge tore the Claimant's rep a new one, so to speak!

Rheebs25_2

Hello,

I would like to add that I have received the same letter. The exact same wording also. Mine is for a parking ticket from 01.09.2016.

h t t p s:// ibb.co/bZ W Mm5

See link above without spaces (like your one).

What i would like to know, should i be worried, and should i respond as i have not acknowledged any of the previous chasers from gladstones. It has also been months since i last received any chasers from this company.

Be very grateful for anyones help with this as i am very worried about it.

Thank you

beamerguy

Rheebs25 wrote: »

Hello,

I would like to add that I have received the same letter. The exact same wording also. Mine is for a parking ticket from 01.09.2016.

h t t p s:// ibb.co/bZ W Mm5

See link above without spaces (like your one).

What i would like to know, should i be worried, and should i respond as i have not acknowledged any of the previous chasers from gladstones. It has also been months since i last received any chasers from this company.

Be very grateful for anyones help with this as i am very worried about it.

Thank you

You have started your own thread, please keep to your one
otherwise it becomes confusing .. thanks

Rheebs25_2

Oh okay. No worries, just noticed this one and seen the same letter.

I will await anyones response over my thread instead.

Cheers

hank1

That's great news, Coupon-mad. Thanks. It is Albion Works and it is the space which is included as part of my rental agreement and is owned by the landlord.

he found out that his own landlord actually owned the allocated bay under a Deed, and it was nothing to do with Artisan H

I'm going to call the estate agents who manage my rent first thing in the morning, and see if this is the same for my space.

If this turns out to be the case, would you advise I not bother sending the reply to the LBCCC and hope they send through a court claim? I'm actually really annoyed that SIP could have got my details from the DVLA illegally and I want my costs awarded (hence my day in court)! SIP are the most arrogant bunch of ****s. Nothing would make me happier than strolling out of court with £170 of their money!

Coupon-mad

I've just sent an email to the neighbour of yours whose case I showed you, to see if he's still around to help advise you with your own defence and how things will go, what to expect.

I would always reply to an LBCCC because it looks reasonable.

You could say you are aware of a case SIP lost at Manchester court about this same site, where the landlord owned the space. Case number C6GF4Z8D, from just a few months ago, and the Defendant - a neighbour of yours - was awarded £170 costs against SIP. Say that you are in touch with the person who wrote that defence and can confirm that this is another owned space, not part of the common areas, so it is nothing to do with Artisan H or SIP, who were in fact trespassing by stepping into the owned parking space and interfering with your vehicle without reasonable cause or lawful excuse.

As such, their proposed claim is wholly vexatious and misconceived and has no merit whatsoever. Indeed this appears to be a case of unwarranted harassment arising from a patently unfair business practice, akin to the situation in Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 46. A court claim would be an abuse of process and should they proceed, say that you will have no hesitation in seeking punitive costs, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) to deter this Claimant from repeating this conduct yet again, causing severe distress and detriment to the residents at Albion Works.

The tell them to take formal note that their client is expressly forbidden to set foot in that space or 'inspect permits' on any vehicle in it, and if any further PCNs are placed on vehicles in space xx in future (whether the driver chooses to display a permit or not) you will seek an Injunction and will pursue SIP for the costs.

Finally, say that by displaying a permit as a mere courtesy to other site users, to show that the bay is owned and not 'pay and display', the drivers of the cars that use that space have not in any way accepted any relationship or contract with Artisan H or SIP, or any other rogue parking firm. For the avoidance of doubt, any signs about parking are categorically no concern of yours, and only relate to the pay and display bays and common areas and SIP and Gladstones already know that, from the decision in C6GF4Z8D, and have no lawful excuse to repeat the harassment in the hope of extracting money from other residents.

Send a copy to Artisan H as well. You don't have to display a permit in your landlord's owned property. Tell them to get lost!

hank1

Thanks. I'll get the reply sent off and let you know what happens. Thanks for dropping him an email, I hope he's still living there and I could perhaps have a chat and pick his brains.

Regardless of this court claim and whether this actually ends up in court, is there the possibility of submitting my own claim with regards to the trespassing, the letters (harassment) and the obtaining of my details illegally? What kind of costs do you think I could potentially recover if I prepared well?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes, you could add a counter-claim at the bottom of your defence, and pay a small fee to the court to make it live (£25).

Counter-claiming for £500 would seem more than reasonable, especially if you are able to show the court that SIP already knew what they were doing was unwarranted, following your neighbour's case.

I can help you word it, and can give you the defence wording, whether or not CCG__87 replies (I've asked if he can send you a pm on here first, if he can still log in here).

I bet other neighbours have paid SIP. It is so wrong this scam is allowed in this Country.

hank1

I know, I've just been doing further research about Gladstones and the shared ownership/conflict of interest with the IPC. Disgusting practices and very worrying how they can so easily purchase our data and operate illegally. A change in the law will eventually happen I think but it will take time. Their operations are slick and the directors must be making hundreds of thousands per year I'd imagine.

How likely do you think Gladstones will send through Court papers? I know I read on another thread you said they file court papers to everyone who gets the LBCCC? If they don't file a county court claim, would I still be of the right mind to submit my own claim on Money Claim Online against SIP?