Link Parking / Gladstones - unclear signage Court Defence by 23 July

DoaM

Umkomaas wrote: »

Or are you saying that the case simply should not have been pursued in the court by the PPC and their legals in the first place?

That's how I read it. So the judge should have awarded punitive costs.

psdie

I'm obviously in agreement that it's a waste of my time and the court's to prepare for (~100 hours, without exaggeration!) and process a claim that was *obviously* without merit - they had a photo from day 1 showing clearly misleading signage. The problem is the ingrained PPC mindset that going to court is cheap and should be pursued regardless of merit - and that won't go away if "unreasonable behaviour" decisions aren't made.

That said, I am of course grateful that the Judge at least dismissed the case - nothing is ever 100%, so it's a relief that went the right way.

The_Deep

Our little man won @TD!

Did he? He spent £100 hours on it for £17. Why are people so easily pleased on here?

Now complain like Donald Duck to your MP.

beamerguy

A good win :beer:

The highly incompetent Gladstones hit the scam buffers yet again.

Not only don't Gladstones understand about the claims they make, they are stupid enough to send a "rent a mouth" who has no idea
Is it John Davies, the head honcho who is so stupid or his staff ?

The Judge ...... some are clueless about costs for the ordinary man whilst they lavish themselves on a £150k plus perks salary

But this was yet another bad egg being dumped on Gladstones

Coupon-mad

psdie wrote: »

Pleased to report I won - claim dismissed in full, costs of £112 (£95 earnings + taxi) awarded Couldn't have done it without the help here from you guys (Coupon-mad in particular) - thank you so much

Case was heard at Cheltenham County Court at 2:30pm, claimant sent a solicitor who was only briefed on Friday so was on catch up (but to be fair better organised than I'd expected). We went through the evidence in detail and Judge was impressed with the clear photos I provided, in contrast to the unclear exhibits from the claimant.

Summing up, my core argument was clearly confusing signage, made plain by signage photos, site plan showing how distant (estimated in metres - Judge seemed to appreciate concrete things like that) and absence of their signage near the parking space. The claimant's rep simple said they disagreed and emphasised how many signs were in place overall - despite being out of sight.

Judge fortunately agreed without question that signs confusing and dismissed case without needing to consider other points in detail. I asked for costs, but had a hiccup that I'd not submitted Schedule of Costs to Claimant in advance, which was an oversight. Attendance costs was no issue supported by evidence of my hourly rate. I tried to push for LiP costs, but Judge said didn't think claimant's behaviour unreasonable enough - I obviously disagree given refusal to hear appeal, etc - but I didn't argue.

So a win, and a small bit of compensation - but the amount of time I had to spend to get there makes me question whether was worth it TBH. Can't help feeling £112 is zero disincentive for the PPC to carry on with the same tactics - can only help the Parking Bill is passed and shakes up the industry.

By the way - I saw repeated instructions to print 3 copies of my entire document bundle, which was 55 pages so burned through paper and toner - only to find neither the claimant nor judge wanted or expected those printed copies. Perhaps that advice should be revised for Small Claims?

Here's copies of my Defence, WS and Doc Bundle index to help others:

• Defence
• Witness Statement
• Document Bundle Index (missing WS and Schedule of Costs) - BundleDocs.com was useful for this.

Thank you again

PS: I don't suppose cases like these get summarised online by the Court, with the Judge's decision or similar? I presume I'll at least get something in writing by post.

And another one bites the dust! :T

Very glad to read your account of your win, and maybe you should write to your MP now and point out the effect, time and money this farce cost you, only to have the court award you the 'win' but with no recompense for what is clearly a cash cow site with that sign.

Which site was it please, and can you give us the claim number in case a future person with a PCN from there or from Link, wants to mention your win?

Not that it sets a precedent, but it's good to know which site this is about, and that if needed, you have some decent photos to share with other victims.

psdie

Thank you Coupon-mad - site was Royal Crescent, Cheltenham, GL50 3DA - Link Parking location code 208. Claim number E6GF7W70.

It was accepted beyond dispute that the signage is currently inadequate when parking close to the Northern entrance. It's possible LP will take steps to remedy - I hope so, but doubt it - not in their interests to remove the honey pot.

Umkomaas

Which site was it please, and can you give us the claim number in case a future person with a PCN from there or from Link, wants to mention your win?

I think CM means the court claim number, not Link's location code.

psdie

Updated above to add that

Coupon-mad

site was Royal Crescent, Cheltenham, GL50 3DA - Link Parking location code 208. Claim number E6GF7W70.

It was accepted beyond dispute that the signage is currently inadequate when parking close to the Northern entrance.

Very useful for newbies to know this, thanks, and do keep those photos in case anyone else needs them in future, please.

maserati89

Just wanted to say thanks to psdie for all the posts and information left in this thread. I won a case against Gladstones & Link this week at the very same site!

Judge agreed again that the signage was confusing due to the presence of the council sign too. Thanks for people on this forum for their help in other threads too!

Another Gladstones loss!