Parking in own space - Gladstoned

[Deleted User]

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Eli - Im not sure there IS a claim yet, just a LBA
The OP could perhaps confirm.

Well, text before action would be a better description (I know he shouldn't have disclosed his mobile no.). Nothing heard since the initial appeal to PPM was rejected back in May, after which it was an 'ignore' policy. Now, out of the blue, a text from Gladstones, claiming no response to their pre-action letter and an invitation to go online and pay £160. Anyway, letter sent to Gladstones, with several case examples, and for each a summary of the points of law. Also we stated that if they brought a county court case it would be defended - which it would be. I think the key point here is the lease, which allocates a parking space and makes no mention of parking control by a third party.

Coupon-mad

That is why I pointed you in the direction of the witness statement which I drafted. You need to come up with a defence along the same lines.

Hmmm...IMHO new posters should be wary of being steered like this by a new poster trying to corral you to a narrow way forward which appears to rely on that poster only.

I am having difficulty posting the witness statement in this thread, but you will find it in post #28 of Dxxxxx's thread.

I recommend new posters are more forum savvy than to be spoon fed a template by another new poster who only joined MSE in September under this username. Since you registered this month, you've tried to steer several threads here (all residential ones) in the direction you seem to have done with some pepipoo posters, some of whom I see now have defences and counter claims they don't even understand, and can't run themselves.

That is not what we do. On this forum we help people to win their cases in a way they can handle at the hearing - no lay reps unless it's bargepole or lamilad.

[Deleted User]

Just to pick up on this thread again - after having told Gladstones in writing that nothing is owed, that there's no mention of a parking permit in the property lease, and if they take it to court we'll file a counter claim, we now have a reply. They, Gladstones, have given us two weeks to send them a copy of the lease, or they will commence legal proceedings. Now I know it might be a good thing to string these scammers along, but we've had enough of them, having already written to them twice. One possibility is that we ignore them from now on, and if they are foolish enough to go to court we'll present the lease there. My only concern would be that the judge might not look on such an approach favourably. Any thoughts? What's really annoying is that these chancers DEMAND to see a copy of the lease. I mean, !!!!!!, do they think they are!! Another possibility is that we send them a copy of the lease, together with an invoice for time spent on this. Again, any thoughts on such an approach?

KeithP

Perhaps suggest to them that they can get their own copy of the lease from the Land Registry.


Or better still, remind them that their client surely has a copy.

There can be no way a reputable company would enter into a contract with the landowner without inspecting the head lease to ensure they had the right to operate in the manner they are. Surely not.

Coupon-mad

Or remind them that this is something their client (and their client principal, together) had a duty to scrutinise and risk assess before enforcement started, under the doctrine of due diligence expected of any public-facing 'service provider' and to ensure they were not going to end up handling residents' data excessively or unfairly.

This is not something to ask the victim to prove, after suffering and seeing PCNs issued to friends, family and neighbours like confetti then acting all surprised when some beleaguered residents rise up and complain.

Certainly point them to the Land Registry but in a way that tells them they are trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted and you are not responsible for helping them do that, to paper over the cracks of their unlawful business model.

[Deleted User]

Thanks chaps. I'll have a think about it. Telling them to check the lease themselves sounds good. We're just reluctant to waste even the cost of a postage stamp on this. That may sound petty, but it's the principle of the thing. These lowlifes are basically engaging in harassment.

Guys_Dad

What is the downside in sending them a copy of the lease which you would, no doubt, produce in court?

Do you want to kill this early if possible or string it out?

[Deleted User]

The downside is we don't want to be continually bothered by this. However, we've come to the conclusion that ONE more letter to these scum operators will be it. The letter will, as suggested above, tell them to refer to their client for details of the lease. We'll also state that no further correspondence will be entered into. Then, if they are stupid enough to take it to court, we'll turn up.

Quentin

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

We're just reluctant to waste even the cost of a postage stamp on this. That may sound petty, but it's the principle of the thing. .

If it succeeds it will save you far more in time/money having to defend a court claim


Forget the idea that 58p for a stamp is a principle worth fighting for!

beamerguy

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

The downside is we don't want to be continually bothered by this. However, we've come to the conclusion that ONE more letter to these scum operators will be it. The letter will, as suggested above, tell them to refer to their client for details of the lease. We'll also state that no further correspondence will be entered into. Then, if they are stupid enough to take it to court, we'll turn up.

The point is that Gladstones are stupid, not only that they are very incompetent but they don't seem to get a grip on reality

The only way is to get their ba*ls cut off in court

Judges with Gladstones in court are getting very good at that