Gladstones LBC advice

Umkomaas

Around £175, so there’s no imperative to cough up until a judge tells you to. And with your effort and forum help, you can easily win at court, turn the tables on the PPC - and they will end up paying you around £100.

Quite sweet?

beamerguy

niik wrote: »

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.

£60 is the debt collector charge and meaningless

Parking charge £100 plus court costs including soliciitor costs,
maybe payable £170/£185 ish BUT ONLY IF YOU LOST.

No reason why you would lose with the help on here.
When you win you can claim costs

You need to understand the mind set of both
Parking and Property Management Ltd and Gladstones

Incompetent solicitor John Davies forced to drop yet another claim
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/incompetent-solicitor-john-davies.html

Gladstones claim struck out - utterly hopeless particulars
Parking & Property Management Limited v C Limited C6GF02Z5 19/1/2017 Birmingham. DJ Musgrave

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/gladstones-claim-struck-out-utterly.html

Parking and Property Management Ltd - you've been Gladstoned
Parking and Property Management Ltd v Mr M. 17/02/2017. Southampton
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/parking-and-property-management-ltd.html

So after reading these, why would you consider losing ??

Loadsofchildren123

niik wrote: »

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.

Absolutely, yes - put something brief in the defence when/if you get that far and then detail in your WS, with your qualifications and expertise. Your evidence won't be treated as expert evidence, but if it is well worded and based on proper facts and evidence then the judge will take your expert qualifications into consideration in deciding whose evidence he prefers.

niik

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]My draft defence as they have proceeded to ignore 2 of my requests to adhere to the pre action protocol.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Claim No:
[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Between[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]PARKING AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](Claimant)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]-and-[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]xxx[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif](Defendant)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]DEFENCE[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons: [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1. It is acknowledged that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]2. In order to issue a parking charge and to pursue charges via litigation, the claimant is required to have written authority from the landowner, on whose behalf they act as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]3. It is denied that the signage used by the claimant can create a fair or transparent contract with the driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the ParkingEye v Beavis case:[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]a) Sporadic and illegible, breach of the BPA Code of Practice as extra care not taken to ensure signage is conspicuous.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]b) Signage is displayed at such a height that it is not possible to be read by the DVLA standards of vision for driving (snellen 6/12).
b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]4. The Claimant!!!8217;s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]5. The defendant believes the term for this conduct is robo-claims which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]6. The letter before action received failed to comply with the practice direction on pre-action conduct. The claimant's solicitor was non compliant as stated in section 7 of the pre-action protocol and refused to provide information needed to attempt at resolving this matter before court proceedings and failed to use an alternative dispute resolution.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]7. The defendant wrote to the claimant on two occasion after the letter before claim, stating the pre-action protocol and listing in detail the information needed to be able to reply to the claim.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]8. The claimant!!!8217;s representatives, Gladstones, have inflated the claim value from £100 to £250. I submit that these added costs have not been incurred by the claimant. This amount has been randomly created and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model. This is in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further, Gladstones Solicitors Limited appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors!!!8217; Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.[/FONT]




[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I believe the facts detailed in this defence are true.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Woah, what happened in the last 9 months? What date is on your claim form?