LBCCC - Gladstones Solicitors

System

Many hands make light work!

Is that to provide the OP with illumination?

Chimichanga

I take it I've missed something (or many things) IamEmanresu?

nosferatu1001

LIGHT work

Chimichanga

A little slow on the uptake today. The stress is getting to me!

Coupon-mad

It's to encourage that light-bulb moment when posters realise they can win!

Chimichanga

Morning everyone.

Could someone please advise if the 'defence' above is on the right track.

Would really appreciate it

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

I think you need more detail in your defence. Here you told us in your OP, more than you've said in your defence, and that's not right, you need to say it like it was:

Chimichanga wrote: »

My family and I were away for 6 weeks (28 Nov 2017- 10 Jan 2018) in New Zealand and during that time I received a PCN (£60 early repayment) dated 29th Nov 4 days after the alleged incident (25th Nov) from HX Car Park Management Ltd. Needless to say we didn't see this or the next 'Outstanding Parking Notice' (£100) dated 28 Dec until we returned home on on 10th Jan. I got another letter dated 12th Jan which was a 'Final Demand Notice' (£125).

At this point I freaked out completely:eek:, as you do, checked my diary and saw that I was not even the driver since I was work 40 miles away that day.

I immediately wrote a letter (dated 19th Jan) telling them that I was not the driver and could provide prof of this if required, gave them a copy of my flight tickets to show we were away and so couldn't respond to their letters and asked them to stop sending me letters of a threatening nature and posted it recorded delivery.

Also no need for your address here, and you can simplify this intro, and put it into the third person:

I am XXXXXX, the defendant in this matter. I currently reside at XXXXXX. I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle XXXXX

1. It is denied that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle on 25/11/2017. The claimant is put to strict proof.

should be just point #1, split into two, perhaps:

1. The Defendant admits that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle referred to in the claim, but denies that he was driving.

1.1. The fact that the Defendant was not the driver was communicated to the Claimant in a letter the Defendant posted by a tracked/signed for method, following receipt of a 'Final Demand' soon after the Defendant had returned from a family holiday in New Zealand for 6 weeks (28 Nov 2017- 10 Jan 2018).

I would say you do need to cover what you think the contravention is alleged to have been and deny liability or any driver contravention, and mention that the signs there are sparse/not as clear and plentiful as the simple signs in the Parking Eye v Beavis case.

EDIT
WE NOW HAVE A TEMPLATE DEFENCE - TOP OF THIS FORUM!

Chimichanga

Hello all.

Just thought that I would update you on what happened since I last posted. As I didn't have the time to follow this through myself my other half took over and was following advice from CAG.

Since the above I received a claim form, I then sent a CPR 31.14 request. Gladys replied saying they did not need to comply with this!

They filed a Witness statement, I filed mine which provided written evidence that I was not the driver as I was in another location 38 miles away at the time, stated the NtK was not POFA compliant, challenged the existence of a contract as all the signs on display were different with different terms (including the fact that one signed said must buy a ticket with 10 minutes of entering the Car Park and another said must buy a ticket within 10 minutes of parking?!!!!), stated they had no planning permission for the signs on display and so no contract could be formed.

The witness statement was not physically signed in pen but signed in a printed version Kenneth Maryland's (HXCPM owner) signature so there was no evidence that he had even seen the WS and so could be challenged at court.

I then received another 2 WS's one almost identical to the first (10 days before court date) and another the day before court which rebutted (inexpertly) the points in my witness statement...one argument was Elliot V Loake case where the driver was assumed to be the driver. (I knew this didn't apply as Elliot v Loake was a criminal case and the driver was assumed to be the driver because there was evidence that suggested that he was in fact the driver...this did not apply here).

My other half (my lay rep since she did all the research) and I arrived at court, were called in to the Judges room and there was no one from Gladys or HXCPM there (no surprise).

Judge gave us a thumbs up (literally) and said she was satisfied I was not the driver and accepted I was under no obligation to name the driver and ruled in my favour awarding costs of £50 (much less than the amount I asked for but I'm not complaining!).

Was a nerve racking experience but definitely worth fighting. I will NEVER pay a Parking Charge Notice again!

A big thank you to everyone who helped and advised me, your help and guidance was much appreciated.

I hope I can contribute some of my new knowledge to others on here in the future.

System

Good win and good news.

Amazed that they are still being allowed to send in 3 different Witness Statements. Judge should have mentioned this.

beamerguy

Well done

How long are the courts going to accept this rubbish and incompetence from Gladstones.

I sometimes wonder if Gladstones even understand the scam they set up themselves ?

It seems that the only way they win is by default which any fool and his dog could do.

Kenneth Maryland (HXCPM owner), should get his membership fee to the IPC refunded as the scam did not work ??