Gladstone Solicitors Court Claim Received (HX Car Park Management)

throwawayflux

Hi all,

Looking for some advice please.

I received a parking ticket towards the end of 2017 for parking without a ticket. I parked in a car park behind a local business which I was visiting, and this car park had always been free for as long as I can remember. I parked there several times over the years whilst visiting the business (a bowling alley) and had never paid, nor had I needed to.

When I visited late one evening at the end of last year, I received a parking ticket through the post a day or two later and was obviously shocked. I visited the car park that evening at a similar time and saw that they had indeed introduced a parking payment system, however the measures/signage in place was wholly inadequate in my opinion, so I took some photos to be used in my defence.

(It won't let me post my photos so please use the links below)

i.imgur.com/yYFyqjo.jpg
i.imgur.com/yYFyqjo.jpg

I found the signage to be inadequate as there was one sign, which was high up on a lamp post, beneath a light which was not working. Not to mention the fact that the sign was white writing on a teal background which is hardly easy to see at the best of times. There were two lamp posts in the car park in total, neither of which were working, so the whole thing was plunged in darkness. I understand from speaking to the staff at the bowling alley that the new parking measurements had come into place within the last 2-3 months of my visit. As it had always been free, I'd expect them to make it as clear as possible that there were new rules in place. I am attaching pictures I took of the car park/sign. Obviously my phone's camera tries to make it as light as possible in the darkness but you can tell, I'm sure, that it was incredibly easy to miss in the dark and that the lights were definitely not working.

The car park was being managed by HX Car Park Management. I decided to appeal to the IPC, not knowing at this point that they would reject it automatically seemingly without any human element. I also, unfortunately, admitted I was the driver & keeper of the car during this appeal stage (I hadn't done any research at this point and naively thought they would see sense when I showed them the photos!).

My appeal was of course rejected instantly and referred to Gladstones Solicitors when I didn't pay by the new deadline. I'm sure many of you already know that the 2 directors of IPC were also the directors of Gladstones Solicitors and that there is a clear conflict of interest there. I note that in 2017, one resigned as a director from IPC and the other resigned from Gladstones, presumably to try and remove this conflict of interest, but in my non-legal mind it doesn't change things and it's clear it is still in their interest to reject appeals regardless of facts.

I wrote a similar appeal email to Gladstones and didn't hear anything for almost a year. Fast forward to today and I have received a Country Court Claim Form for Northampton County Court, and have 14 days to appeal/admit.

I have a couple of questions:

1) How does my admittance of being the keeper & driver change my defence?
2) Do my photos & facts above constitute a solid defence when in court or should I just pay it?
3) If I go to court and lose, does that still count as a CCJ on my credit file for 6 years? I really cannot afford for this to happen and if that's the case then I may just pay the now inflated charges rather than risk losing (unless consensus is that my defence is strong).

I do have witnesses who were with me when I parked there and didn't see the signage either, one of which also got a ticket for his car, but paid it straight away as he didn't want to deal with the aggro of appealing and defending it.

Thanks

luverlyjubbly

Pofa is out of the window if you admitted being the driver.

Probably best probe the signs and ipc compliance. Get hold of the ipc code of practice that was in force at the time. Signs at the entrance etc...

It's unlikely hx will have pictures of the car park/signs if there's only one sign up so make sure you've got plenty showing the signs are not prominent.

The landowner contract would be interesting to see as well.

A few people have had claims at this car park, check out by searching the forum.

If you go all the way and lose, you can pay the claim within 28 days and have no ccj recorded against you.
Also, the claim you've now got for approx £250 might end up being lower once the judge removes the spurious add-on fees.

Le_Kirk

Your links made live: -

https://i.imgur.com/yYFyqjo.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/yYFyqjo.jpg

System

Unlit signs in the dark are your best bet. The signs are likely "compliant" as HX pay the IPC for the once over. Surprisingly (not) a lot these signs lead to a lot of tickets and business for Gladstones.

Surprisingly the owners of the IPC and Gladstones appear to be the same - unless they have failed to tell Companies House.

throwawayflux

Thanks for making the links live. Would appreciate any comments on the photos and how reasonable the unlit/poor signage defence is based on them.

Also any pointers towards relevant legislation/cases in respect of unlit signage would be superb.

Thanks.

KeithP

throwawayflux wrote: »

Also any pointers towards relevant legislation/cases in respect of unlit signage would be superb.

As suggested earlier:

Probably best probe the signs and ipc compliance. Get hold of the ipc code of practice that was in force at the time. Signs at the entrance etc...

System

Also any pointers towards relevant legislation/cases in respect of unlit signage would be superb.

Red Hand Rule - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Spurling_Ltd_v_Bradshaw

How many contracts have you signed in the dark? Or without seeing them.

It doesn't really need cases if it is plain.

throwawayflux

Hi all,

Sorry for the slow updates - life got the better of me. I have just a few days remaining in which to file the defence, having filed an AoS online and making use of the 28 days extension.

I have drafted the defence, which I am including below, and would appreciate any comments/pointers. Please bear in mind the driver did click the 'I was the driver' button when originally appealing the parking ticket through IPC's website, so I have omitted the usual arguments to do with the lack of proof concerning the driver of the vehicle.

I do also have some specific questions:
1) In my mind, the strongest point is the lack of illuminated signs. Should I bump this up to being paragraph 1, or is the current layout ok?
2) The illuminated signage point is made in para 2.c.ii and also in 3. Should I reorganise this?
3) I have photographic evidence of the unlit signs at the site in question, do I need to submit these with the defence, or just take them to court on the day? I wasn't sure on my wording of this at the end of para 3.a and would appreciate guidance here.
4) Is para 6 worth including or is it too speculative given the resignations mentioned?

---

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

1. The Claimant is in breach of pre-court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, as set out by the Ministry of Justice, and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.
a. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant then, under Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3, “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim”. There is no copy of the any PCN, Notice to Keeper, or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.
b. In accordance with CPR, the particulars of claim are also in breach of paragraph 16.4. They are extremely sparse – they divulge no course of action, not sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. They disclose no clear cause of action.

2. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant, there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
a. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
b. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by display their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
c. Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. Sporadic and illegible signage – breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice – no contract formed to pay any stated sum.
ii. The signage was not illuminated and any terms were not transparent or legible – this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring signage to be “large, prominent and legible”.

3. The lack of signage illumination is in breach of the Code of Practice for the International Parking Committee (IPC), of which HX Car Park Management Ltd is a member.
a. IPC’s Code of Practice Part B paragraph 2.2 states “Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code”. Schedule 1 Part E states “If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge”. Photographic evidence of the unilluminated signage has been provided, see Exhibit XX, and there is therefore no legal basis of any charge.
b. Furthermore, IPC’s Code of Practice states “The colours used on signage should be such that the contrast between the background and the text makes the wording on the sign clearly legible”. Upon closer inspection of the photographic evidence, it can be seen that the signage uses white text on a teal background, which does not provide sufficient contrast to “avoid combinations which might cause difficulties for the visually impaired”.

4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2012] 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. None of this applies in this material case.
a. If the court believes there was a contract (which is denied), this is just the sort of ‘simple financial contract’ identified at the Supreme Court as one with an easily quantifiable loss (i.e. the tariff), identified as completely different from the complex ‘free parking licence’ arrangement in Beavis.
b. Where loss can be quantified, the ‘complex’ and ‘completely different’ Beavis decision is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye Ltd v Cargius, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.
c. At the Court of Appeal stage in Beavis, pay-per-hour car parks were specifically held by those Judges (in findings not contradicted in the Supreme Court later) as still being subject to the “penalty” rule, with the potential for the charge to be held to be wholly disproportionate to the tariff, and thus unrecoverable. In other words, charging £100 for a period of time for which the ‘agreed and published’ tariff rate s £1/hour would be perverse, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and not a matter that the courts should uphold.

5. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. 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 representative’s costs’ were incurred.

6. There appears to be a conflict of interest between IPC and Gladstones Solicitors Ltd which calls into question the independence and legitimacy of IPC’s Independent Appeals Service (IAS). This is important as rejected IAS claims are passed to Gladstones Solicitors Ltd for legal action, which generates revenue. William Hurley and John Davies were both directors of United Trade and Industry Ltd t/a International Parking Committee (IPC) and Gladstones Solicitors Ltd until 28th May 2017, when William Hurley resigned from Gladstones Solicitors Ltd and John Davies resigned from United Trade and Industry Ltd. The Defendant presumes these resignations on the same day were an attempt to rectify this clear conflict of interest, however serious concerns remain about the true independence provided by IPC’s appeals service. Indeed, both William Hurley and John Davies remain as directors of Patron Hallow Ltd, so a working relationship remains.

throwawayflux

I forgot to add the details of their particulars of claim, incase that's useful for others to assist me:

'The driver of the vehicle registration XXX ('the Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 23/10/2017) for breaching the terms of parking on the land at PROPERTY ADDRESS. The defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. And the Claimant claims £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with the interest of £9.34 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.'

KeithP

throwawayflux, what is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Coupon-mad

International Parking Committee

Community.

If your main point is about signs, it's lost in that long defence. Do not talk about advertising consent, it has no legs in a defence IMHO.

Read the concise ones by bargepole that I've linked in the NEWBIES thread.