Gladstones LBC for 10-min private residential stay

petallica

Hi all,

This relates to a Parking Charge Notice issued from the PPC (PPML) via NTK for £100 - driver was initially identified in appeal on company website (by mistake and prior to reading information on here!). Took advice not to appeal via IPC/IAS, no debt collection letters, but a few days ago received LBC from Gladstones acting on behalf of the PPC, asking for £160 or a response within 30 days.

To summarise the incident:
Parked in private residential car park in bay marked only as “VISITOR”, visiting tenant holding a parking permit. However, tenant wasn’t aware about requirement to hold a visitor parking permit to allow visitor to park.
PPML operative was seen in car park, car was photographed by operative as being parked for 10 minutes. Went to speak to operative, then left premises to park elsewhere, in belief that no contravention had yet occurred and no charges would be issued.
The signage was poor with small font, unclear, and not obviously related to the bays marked “VISITOR”. Also, there is photographic proof that signage was increased following the incident (adjacent to visitor bays), does this imply inadequate signage? (and not in compliance with IPC Code of Practice??)

I’d appreciate any advice on the next steps to take, and whether or not this is a strong case to defend (especially since driver was identified)?
I presume my first action would be to respond requesting a LBC that complies with the Pre-Action Protocol (which the LBC certainly seems not to)?

Many thanks in advance

The_Deep

Read this

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

and consult the occupier about the terms of their lease/AST wrt visitor parking. They may have leasehold rights which trump made up T&Cs by parking scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.

KeithP

Yes, reply to the LBC.

Post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread has a couple of sample robust LBC responses suitable for residential situations.

petallica

Will reply to the LBC - thanks very much for your help The Deep and KeithP

Coupon-mad

And come back when you get a reply, or a claim, which it being PPML and Gladstone, you WILL.

And we hope you read the fact that we see people report wins in 99% of defended claims here.

petallica

Hi all,

I recently received a claim form for which I've filed the AoS online, so I'd appreciate any advice and comments on my draft defence underneath.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to obtain details of the lease/tenancy agreement from the tenant of the property at the time, despite plenty of efforts.

Thanks


In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: xxxxxxxxx

Between

P&PMLtd v xxxx

DEFENCE

I am xxxx, the Defendant in this matter and the driver of vehicle xxxx at the time of the alleged parking event at xxxxxxxxxxxx on xxxxxxxxx 2017.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

Non-compliance with Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims

1. The Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) and as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

2. There was no compliant Letter Before County Court Claim under the Practice Direction.

3. The Claimant'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. HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims. 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.

4. The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant is uncertain exactly what the claim is about, why and how the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention. These documents, and the Letter Before County Court Claim should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to take stock pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

a) Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute

b) Enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure

c) Encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and

d) Support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

5. The Defendant therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted

Unrecoverable sums

6. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge of £100. It is believed that the Employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 legal representatives costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has artificially inflated this claim. They are claiming legal costs when not only is this not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that they have not incurred legal costs. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The Claimant has not explained in sufficient details how the claim has increased from the original parking notice of £100 to £241.88. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

Grace Period

7. The International Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice (CoP) includes a statement about grace periods:

a) !!!8220;15. Grace Periods
15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.!!!8221;

b) The Claimant has previously made available timestamped photographs from an operative. These photographs show a full duration of stay at the site of 10 minutes from the time shown on the first photograph to time shown on the last photograph taken, which the Defendant asserts should be within a reasonable time frame that could constitute a grace period, and therefore that the parking charge should never have been issued by the Claimant.

Failure to set out clear parking terms

8. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free.The charge was judged necessary to avoid overstaying. None of this applies in this case. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification.

9. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in was inadequate, due to the following:

a) No signage clearly visible when driving onto the site, or when parking in a visitor's bay, which is a breach of the IPC Code of Practice Schedule 1 (4).
b) Illegible signage (parking charge not prominent nor in large lettering) - breach of the IPC CoP and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
c) No signage present around or adjacent to the bay in which the vehicle in the alleged parking event was parked, except for small signs on the parking bays themselves marked !!!8220;VISITOR!!!8221;, which could additionally be argued to be misleading and distract a driver's attention from the possibility of other signage displaying parking terms.

Additional signage installed near visitor bays following alleged parking incident

10. The timestamped photographs previously made available by the Claimant clearly show a lack of signage around the marked visitor bays of the site. The Defendant avers that approximately 2 months after the alleged parking incident, a new sign had been installed by the visitor bays, as shown by a photograph taken by the Defendant, which adds further weight to the argument that the signage was inadequate at the time of the alleged parking event, not least in their distribution around the parking site.

11. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context.

Primacy of contract

12. The Defendant believes that the tenancy agreement held by the tenant being visited at the time of the alleged parking event does not place restrictions on visitors to tenants of the property parking at the site, which would imply primacy of contract of the tenancy agreement that would allow an unfettered right for genuine visitors of tenants to use the visitor bays without charge.

No standing

13. No standing; this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed the Claimant does not, or did not at the time of the alleged parking event, hold a legitimate contract at the car park in question. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name that should be in the name of the landowner.

14. In light of the foregoing, it is submitted that the Claimant has no cause of action, and has no evidence that the Defendant was in breach of any contractual terms, whether expressly, by conduct, or at all.

[STANDARD END STATEMENT OF DEFENCE]

KeithP

7. should be International Parking Community.

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

petallica

The date of issue is 1st June 2018, so I believe that allows me until 4pm on 3rd July?

Thanks

The_Deep

If you spoke to the parking weasel who informed you that you needed a permit, and you left immediately afterwards, I do not see how the PPC could claim that you breached a contract, especially if the signage was poor. I think that they would struggle in court.

If the PW submits a WS make sure that he/she attends court in order to be cross examined. It would be interesting to hear what their instructions are about mitigating their employer's losses.

petallica

Thanks The Deep!


Do you think I should amend my defence to include details of the conversation with the PW?

Coupon-mad

Yes, I will suggest some wording, but please answer these Qs first:

Can you confirm there was no PCN on the car?

When (EXACTLY WHAT DATE) did the Notice to Keeper arrive at your house (I am not asking what date was on it)? Was it with you at your place, within 15 days?