Late NTK, Unreadable Signage and False PCN

BTailor

Sounds good. Thank you Coupon-mad. I'll make those changes and get it sent.

BTailor

Success! A sweet victory for the MSE corner:

Dear Mr X

Thank you for your correspondence.

Our Client has instructed us to close the above file and as such, no further correspondence will be sent.

Kind Regards

PXXX MXXX
Litigation Assistant

Thank you so much to all who helped, advised and spent time considering my situation.

Coupon-mad

Hahaha! Another one bites the dust before it even started! :T

I wonder if it was this bit; I really enjoyed writing this part:

The IPC has advised all its members that minor keying errors should not be deemed a breach of terms and conditions. and is publicly telling Councils an private parking firms to cancel PCNs where a single digit error was made (either by rare driver error, or more likely because the keypad was old, faded or faulty).

Kindly explain why this keypad was old, faded and faulty? Because the driver is none of those and the correct VRN was input, using reasonable endeavours to comply when paying for this vehicle.

Further, kindly explain why the IPC and Gladstones are not singing from the same hymn sheet - is it because this is a template robo-claim and Gladstones has not yet bothered to even ask your IPC member what the alleged contravention was?

Or is it because you believe you can sue over this non-issue on the one hand, whilst the IPC tell their members that this is 'not a breach of contract' on the other? Left hand..right hand...? Or do you believe the date of the event(s) matter, and are actually going to expect a Judge to believe that it 'was a breach of contract' in Spring 2018 and now it's suddenly not, because the IPC said so on a certain date?

BTailor

It was a particularly strong section. I wander what it was like as the solicitor reading it thinking "hmmmm this guys knows what he's doing"

BTailor

Not in the clear yet ...

Just as we thought we were in the clear, another LBC from Gladstone's has come though for PCN 1 (odd that it's so long after the second & third).... to recap:

PCN received 22nd Jan 2018 - driver didn't see the sign as entered the carpark when dark and wasn't lit, came back and there was the PCN. Pictures were then taken by the driver of the carpark signs where the sun had bleached 50% of the writing on it off. Another sign says that permit holders only on one half of it and pay and display on the other which is confusing.

Note 1: On making a subject data request, there is a note on the europarking file on 20/3/18 that the ticket was edited - I think this is because the ticket has the wrong vehicle colour stated on it.

Note 2: The NTK was sent on day 58 (21st March) - When the PCN was issued - I was under the impression they were part of the BPA

Note 3: the proof of signage on the SAR by europarking shows a sign from an unnoticeable part of the carpark to anyone who would enter the carpark in anything other than full daylight. I have video proof of the placement.

Anyhow, my letter to Gladstone's for a more qualified set of eyes....

BTailor

Thank you for your letter referenced: XXX

When your client initially contacted myself (the keeper) with the NTK sent on X/3/18 I asked them for details of the basis upon which money was being claimed, including all photographs taken of the vehicle at the relevant time plus photographs of the signage - these communications were sent via email on the X/4/2018 - no such evidence has been provided. Your Letter Before Claim also contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide the sufficient evidence which I requested and that you say your client is satisfied with.

On the date on the PCN the driver had entered the car park in darkness and was unable to see any of the sparse signage at the site. Following the issuing of the PCN, the driver took various photos and videos of the site in the light – there are only two clear signs near where the car was parked; one not supplied by your client with contradictory information related to the location being permit holders only and Pay & Display at the same time, and another that is supplied by your client where 50% of the sign has been eroded. Hardly compliant. These images have been attached and will be relied upon in court – as will supplementary videos.

I will also bring to your attention the notes provided by your client on my SAR:

Note XX30 (X/3/18) “Ticket edited on 20-03-2018 by James Tark, Date: 20/03/2018 16:10:26”

I would like to ask you whether you deem it acceptable that your client happily ‘edits’ the details of their tickets after their issuing to ensure their validity - all with the hope that the keeper does not notice?

In addition to this, the image of the terms & condition signage provided by your client on the SAR as proof of signage was taken from an area of the carpark that is completely unremarkable to any visitors. Again, I the keeper have video evidence of this and will rely upon it.

I am fully aware that Gladstones were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate on February 2nd 2018, and again last week on Friday 23rd November 2018, where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like Gladstones making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. Trivial breaches, poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.
10. A copy of the IPC Code of Practice including the relevant clause relating to sufficient signage.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20); Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information in early 2017, yet your client has yet to provide it.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Coupon-mad

I never understand why people drive into private car park traps at night and don't simply park on street, which is what I do even in large cities, including when driving in London, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge, to name four.

I am saying this first, not to criticise, but as a warning to STOP people doing this. We see cases like this far too often and these scam sites are better avoided. You can pretty much always find a nearby(ish) street where the daytime restrictions have ended.

Or cover your numberplates.

You can respond to Gs like that but I think it's too long. They won't read it and they don't have to produce this:

5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim

BTailor

Yes completely agreed about the choice of location, it must be frustrating to help with so many of the same error, however the circumstances that the driver was under rather dictated that choice.

Do you agree with a re-wording of the conditions and a simple cutting out the citation of previous cases that would be relied upon?....

Thank you for your letter referenced: XXX

When your client initially contacted myself (the keeper) with the NTK I asked them for details of the basis upon which money was being claimed, including all photographs taken of the vehicle at the relevant time plus photographs of the signage - these communications were sent via email in April 2018 - no such evidence has been provided. Your Letter Before Claim also contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide the sufficient evidence which I requested and that you say your client is satisfied with.

On the date on the PCN, the driver had entered the car park and was unable to see any of the sparse signage at the site. Following the issuing of the PCN, the driver took various photos and videos of the site to prove the insufficient signage: only two were in the vicinity of the car, one (not supplied by your client) with no terms and conditions, and another that where 50% of the sign has been eroded also showing no terms and conditions. Hardly compliant. These images have been attached and will be relied upon in court – as will supplementary videos.

I will also bring to your attention the notes provided by your client on the SAR:

Note XX30 (X/3/18) “Ticket edited on 20-03-2018 by James Tark, Date: 20/03/2018 16:10:26”

I would like to ask you whether you deem it acceptable that your client happily ‘edits’ the details of their tickets after their issuing to ensure their validity - all with the hope that the keeper does not notice?

In addition to this, the image of the terms & condition signage provided by your client on the SAR as proof of signage was taken from an area of the carpark that is completely unremarkable to any visitors and has to be searched for to see it. Again, I the keeper have video evidence of this and will rely upon it.

I am fully aware that Gladstones were 'named and shamed' in a Parliamentary debate on February 2nd 2018, and again on Friday 23rd November 2018, where MPs unanimously clamoured to expose rogue parking firms and their 'cosy relationship' with firms like Gladstones making a mint from their clients' rogue ticketing and unfair fining. Trivial breaches, poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines and aggressive demands for payment have no place in the 21st century and companies like yourself are an absolute disgrace.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver
6. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
7. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
8. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.
9. A copy of the IPC Code of Practice including the relevant clause relating to sufficient signage.

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

Coupon-mad

Yes you can send that to string it out a bit. It won't stop the juggernaut, though.

BTailor

We have the following email received. I think they may be a bit ruffled. The question is do I show my hand, send this across and stem this in the bud early, or do I keep it close to my chest and use it as a deterrent?

There is a video, and it shows how the sign that the attendant took a picture of is no where near the car. The pictures already supplied to Gladstones show the one visible sign to the car which is eroded and ineligible.

---

Dear XX

Thank you for your correspondence.

To assist in seeking our Client's instructions we would be grateful if you could provide the video evidence you refer to in the below email.

Kind Regards

---

Thanks guys!