Forum Home» Motoring» Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking

Gladstone Solicitors Claim letter - Need help with defence

New Post Advanced Search

Gladstone Solicitors Claim letter - Need help with defence

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
36 replies 1.5K views
guess_huguess_hu Forumite
19 posts
edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
So a registered keeper has received a claim form for 3 parking fines located at Salisbury village from (pcm?) dated 28/09/2017, 05/12/2017 and 24/01/2018

The driver lived away from the address the letters were being sent to as they were at university and rarely visited home.
The driver visited a friends residential home and parked in either 2 spaces, 1 which is allocated to the house itself, or in the communal car park for the residents that lived there or the residents visitors.
The driver had a permit available for parking but when the parking attendant gave the tickets, it didn’t allow the driver enough time to retrieve the permit from the home as there were 7 people living in the home and he had to ask each of them who had it last and where has it been put.
One of the time the driver was getting back into the car and the parking attendant was sticking on the ticket, the driver then questioned him as he was just retrieving the permit and the parking attendant said not to worry about the ticket and took it with them. At the same time the parking attendant took a photo of the driver sitting in the car.

Long story short, the driver wasn’t living where the car was registered as they were at a university address during their term time so all the letters were missed and they have now been left with a claim form from Gladstone solicitors.

So I have read the newbie post and have advised them to do the AOS to allow another 14 days.

They’ve just taken pictures of the sign and the car park, I will try to attach it below but I think they have a leg to stand on as it states on the sign “when parked wholly within confines of a marked bay” From what they know there aren’t any marked bays and if there are, they were covered with dirt making them impossible to recognise. They’ll be getting pictures of the whole car park soon but I’m just seeking guidance for them for what they should be doing.
imgur.com/a/HBFfejT
«134

Replies

  • RedxRedx Forumite
    29K posts
    10,000 Posts Sixth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    they should be drafting their defence (if the AOS has been done) and basing it on any recent defences posted on here that were approved for submission, but they should also look at the BARGEPOLE concise defence and any others he has honed as well

    so read any defences honed by BARGEPOLE , coupon_mad , LOC123 , Johnnersh , Iamemanresu and any other knowledgeable regulars on that topic but only from this year (2018) - not older ones

    then post the proposed draft for critique below, along with the POC and the DATE OF ISSUE from the claim form

    EVIDENCE like photos of sign age etc are useful but not need until a few weeks before the actual court date, so by all means get them but dont let that stop the drafting of the defence, becuase they wont be needed for months
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
  • Le_KirkLe_Kirk Forumite
    10.3K posts
    10,000 Posts Sixth Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Your link made live: -

    http://imgur.com/a/HBFfejT
  • edited 8 October 2018 at 6:32AM
    SystemSystem
    177.7K posts
    10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 8 October 2018 at 6:32AM
    Have a read of this thread. Has pics of the signs too.

    http://legalbeagles.info/forums/forum/legal-forums/motoring-parking/ppc-s-parking-charge-notices/parking-live-court-claims/93760-county-court-claim-letter-over-parking-fine

    Typical PCM claim (how often do we say this) Signs hidden in foliage and high up.Terms are unclear in that the "penalty" element is buried in the small print.

    There is even a draft defence there to have a look at if you register and download it.
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    21.7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    What is the Date of Issue on the Claim Form?
  • The_DeepThe_Deep Forumite
    16.8K posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
    for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • Thanks for the responses guys, I've just been researching around the forum on different posts writing up a defence.
    Date of issue was 03 OCT 2018

    Here is what I have put together for the defence so far, any help is greatly appreciated!


    1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of non marked parking spaces. Given this lack of clarity regarding how or where a resident with a parking permit is, or is not, allowed to park in this car park, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.


    3. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

    5) This claim and the other very similar one merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

    6) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

    7) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    8) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

    9) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

    10) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

    11) It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

    12) This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
  • Had a look at the post, that is the same location but there is residential parking behind the houses where the bigger sign is and that is also operated by the same company. I will be getting pictures of the whole car park today and ill get them uploaded as there aren't any marked bays as per the terms in my 1st picture.
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    21.7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    guess_hu wrote: »
    Date of issue was 03 OCT 2018
    With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd October, you have until Monday 22nd October to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Monday 5th November 2018 to file your Defence.

    Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

    1) Print your Defence.
    2) Sign it and date it.
    3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to [email protected]
    5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
  • SystemSystem
    177.7K posts
    10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Take 6, 7 and 8 out. The need is to focus on factual statements which are relevant to the particulars of their claim.

    So check the paras above for anything that can be stripped out based on not supported by fact or the balance of probabilities.

    The only other decision you need to make is whether it is better to reveal the driver now or later. Playing "hide the driver" carries the risk of allowing the judge to make a decision on the honesty of other statements. Called adverse inference.
  • KeithP wrote: »
    With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd October, you have until Monday 22nd October to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

    Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Monday 5th November 2018 to file your Defence.

    Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

    1) Print your Defence.
    2) Sign it and date it.
    3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to [email protected]
    5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

    AOS has already been done a few days ago :beer:
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support