Gladstones LBC advice

niik

I have examined multiple forums and the stickies and I need some advice.

THE KEEPER received a parking charge in march for the vehicle was parked in a shopping car park for 3 hours, 1 hour over the 2 hour stay. Assuming the car park was part of the shopping precinct, no parking machines nearby and the only signage was positioned unreasonable high (4 metres) in small print. When appealing at IAS, the company submitted eye-level signage that is from a different car park site and used this as their defence, IAS ruled in their favour.

Now received a final reminder for £160 (originally charge £60), I responded saying The keeper entered in no such contract. I now have the "Letter before claim".

I have come up with 3 options but unsure which is the best to choose, please help.

1. Do I respond with a letter as suggested in "Parking - Letter Before County Court Claim (LBCCC) - Fight back! Guidance Thread" in regards to pre conduct and not explaining how they have come to the amount stated and/or in regards to not detailing the facts or providing evidence (photos etc). They only put a charge amount in the letter and that full details of charge were previously provided "within pcn/notice to driver/notice to keeper".
2. Sent the above letter and a without prejudice for lets say £10 admin + £10 for 3 hours parking just to avoid the aggro? I am prepared to pay a small amount if you guys believe it's likely to be accepted, to get this out of my life.
3. Concede and not bother arguing the unfair signage and pay the amount they want?

Also, I am registered Optician, am I able to declare my expertise within a small claims court as to point out visual issues with the signage? Please help

Redx

edit the above to remove any hint of who was driving

only use THE DRIVER or THE KEEPER when referring to the day in question

"the vehicle was parked" is the correct wording , etc etc

if the LBC is real and has come from gladrags, it should have followed the new protocols that came in on 01 oct 2017 (I doubt that it has)

so if its a real LBC and starts with a 1 in the ref, use the LBC rebuttals recently posted which are up to date about the new protocols

signage will be one of many legal points you will bring up in any court claim

just read recent gladrags defence posts to see how they feature, as well as the other legal points too

the LBCC fightback thread details old protocols that have been out of date for 2 or more years

read the newbies faq STICKY thread , post #2

niik

Edited as per your advice. Please confirm otherwise.

Umkomaas

Also, I am registered Optician, am I able to declare my expertise within a small claims court as to point out visual issues with the signage? Please help

Like what? (‘Is it clearer with 1 or is it clearer with 2? Sorry, just my sense of humour! )

Tell us more.

Better - if you’re going to criticise the signage, do so against the relevant ATA Code of Practice.

Which PPC please? We can give you advice as to how likely this will end in a small court claim.

Redx

niik wrote: »

Edited as per your advice. Please confirm otherwise.

confirmed

but you also said "sickies" which are days taken off work "sick"

when its actually "stickies" , lol

so its

1) no

2) no

3) no

niik

I could only find " Signs showing your detailed terms and conditions must be at least 450mm x 450mm." I was going to argue that someone with the minimum DVLA legal driving vision of 6/12 would not be able to read the small print on their signs, that they have positioned, at over 4 metres high.

Umkomaas

So, which PPC?

niik

Sorry I wasnt sure if I was to mention the company, Parking and property management ltd

beamerguy

To get Gladstones out of your life, you need to get
them whooped in court which is now a regular thing.

Have they asked you to pay another company such as DRP
If so, it's one of their pimped out letterheads

At this stage the best thing to do is write back as KEEPER

You deny any debt and request proof of the claim

As from the 1st Oct 2017, the procedure for claims
became much tougher for them and they have to provide
this info if they do claim.

Don't use "without prejudice" as this means it cannot be shown
in court and you want everything shown to a judge.

I think the only benefit of being an Optician is that when the judge
looks over his glasses at the Gladstones incompetence, maybe you
could suggest bifocals

Simple "deny" letter and shoot the ball back

Umkomaas

‘£160’ almost always indicates that the letter (no matter how it’s headed) is a DRP letter. It may end in a court case; whether it does or not is out of your hands. P&PM can be litigious, sorry, but can’t dress it up any sweeter than that, but their court claims can be defended successfully with help from the forum.

Know your enemy: (whoops - Phil Hammond gaffe! )

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203549832-Parking-and-Property-Management-Ltd

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

niik

So if these guys P&PM are persistent and say worst case the Judge rules in their behalf. How much can they inflate the £160 up by? I am already !!!!ed that it jumped from £60 to £100 and now it's suddenly £160. Is there a maximum I should expect to pay if I lose? I don't want to sound pessimistic, just need to know the worst case scenario.