Court Claim - PCM (UK)/Gladstones

tomburg89

Excellent, cheers for the info. My defence was in line with what you have suggested and my witness statement just amplifies certain points and references all the documents and the full timeline of events. I also added in the fact that they have now changed signage and made it clear you are entering private land.

Also i'm fairly sure they have included different signs in their witness statement (bright green) where as in the pictures of my car the sign doesn't have any green, so i believe i need to ask for a photo of the actual sign that can be seen in the same shot as my car. It looks to me like they have doctored the picture that they have included in the evidence pack to include the date of the alleged offence. I guess i can challenge this so that they provide better photos? I don't suppose you have any photos of the signage back in 2017?

nosferatu1001

You can point out in your skeleton that the claimants evidence is misleading or just a lie - the signs theyc laim to be there clearly CANNOT be there, as their own evidenfe of the day proves.

glosandy

Received today. Interesting to note, there has been much more effort put into this by them, than the previous one. Still rubbish, mind. Points made are:

– Signs are clear
– Use of CCBC etc, defending lack of particulars
– Riposte to our contention that no pre-action correspondence was entered into, specifically mentioning LBCCC dated April
– No contract defence
– Alder vs Moore 1961 defence
– Quoting Parking Eye case (no details), something to do with 2hr time limit, then links to this case (which is about parking in an unmarked bay???)
– Land management
– Quotes Parking Eye vs Somerfield 2011 re. level of charge
– More signage stuf, audited and approved by the IPC, drivers responsibility etc.
– Parking on access roads, drivers not impeding etc, stuff about affecting traffic flow, impede emergency vehicles, looks disorderly.
– Specific reference to signage adjacent to parking bay, critically "...not parked within a bay it was parked on paved land"

They repeatedly make the point that the vehicle was parked on "paved land in a restricted area". I think they know the flaw in this argument (all of the parking is paved!!), but are trying to sound like they know what they're doing.

– Robo claims denial
– Stuff about the debt

Documents supplied include:
– Landowner authority (single sheet, hand amended, shoddy)
– Copy of generic sign
– Site map including sign position
– Case file - copies of charge notices, 2 x photo, LBCCC

So, will look to adjust our WS to counter a couple of the points above.

Cheers

glosandy

Letter received from Gladstones today, Request for Rectification of Data (Surname).

The surname held at DVLA (maiden name) isn't the same as the Defendant's current one. So all GS documents and Court filings have the wrong surname. All correspondence from the Defendant is in their current surname.

GS want a copy of ID (Drivers Licence). Any issue supplying this?

Coupon-mad

What, they think a company can send a REQUEST FOR RECTIFICATION OF DATA to a data subject, an individual who can choose to be known by any name they want?

LOL...I think they have the GDPR back to front.

I would refuse. No way should they see your driving licence, which could be in the name Mickey Mouse, if you were also known by that name.

IMHO, they don't have the wrong surname, they have a name the D is known by.

glosandy

Case Dismissed by District Judge Billings - we won!

Much better experience than my previous visit. The DJ was much more friendlier, respectful and approachable. Took into account the nerves of the Defendant, and allowed myself to speak when needed.

No representation from Gladstones/PCM.

DJ seemed better prepared this time, seemed to understand both positions. No interest in any technicalities, managed to focus in on the key issues.

Trump card this time was with regard to the lack of bay markings. She also took on board the fact that the bay is used by many people and that PCM have not applied any signage to prevent its use i.e. it's a money-maker for them.

Solid B+ performance from us.

DJ sums up and based on the way the bay is laid out, dismisses the claim as the Claimant has failed to make a clear case.

Awards us costs for travel, parking and less of earnings. No LIP costs allowed.

So, three from three so far in our favour. But still three to go...

Coupon-mad

Yay, another win from you, well done again - another one bites the dust!

tomburg89

Congratulations Glosandy, I too won my case on the same grounds "inadequate bay markings", Gladstone also failed to turn up which didn't amuse the Judge. I wonder how forthcoming PCM will be paying damages though....

helencooke01

Hi there

I have a Court Case for the exact same location - I am just in the process of preparing a defence. This thread has been invaluable and congratulations to the people who won their cases!

One thing I was wondering - how do you get the location changed from Northampton to Chelt/Glos?

Thanks

Helen

Le_Kirk

When you receive your DQ, there will be a chance on there to name your court.