£160X2 Letter Before Claim received from Gladstones, PLZ HELP!

stevegg

Before posting, I have gone through the threads and Newbies #2.

There are great help on drafting the letter and I understand this time I MUST respond.

Case: 2 parking charges notices (one on the window screen, one came from the post - obviously some took the photo )

I ignored all the letters sent to me as I didn't park there, all I have done was to drop off the furniture to my friend's flat and came down straight away.

I just realised that it would have been different if I appealed it earlier after going through the threads.

Before the LBC, I received 2 fake Gladstone letter from UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT I believe or the Debt Recovery Plus. ( They have totally different website and signaures and of course address format )

FAKE Website and Signature : gslcollections DOT COM with Gladstones Solicitors Limited

REAL website and signature : gladstonessolicitors DOT co DOT uk with Gladstone Solicitors

Now Letter Before Claim received from Gladstones ( I believe it is real ) and I will need to respond as suggested by the threads.

Please see the draft that I will send to Gladstone and I hope someone will be able to give me a hand on correcting the draft.


==============================================
Dear Sir / Madam,

Ref: xxxxxx

I have received your Letter Before Claim dated 27th September 2018 in the post on Thursday 04/10/2018.

In your letter, you refer to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (the Protocol); however, your Letter Before Claim does not comply with paragraph 3 of the Protocol as it does not contain the following information:

1. The manner in which the debts have arisen whether orally, in writing or conduct (3.1(a)(iii) to 3.1(a)(iv)).
2. Provide details of where the Reply Form should be sent (3.1(a)(viii)).
3. Enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and Reply Form (3.1(c)).

Although your letter mentions the use of a Reply Form and Information Sheet through your website, I am not required to do so, nor do I wish to register my personal information on your website. Please find enclosed my request for hard copies; until I have received these documents, I do not consider the 30 day reply period to have begun.

Without prejudice to the above, I require further information from you (please see below) to assess my position. Without this information, I am unable to provide a full response to your client’s allegations. Therefore, please can you provide me with the information below:

• Details of the original charge including documentation, photos and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added.
• Details of the claim – where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, how long for, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated.
• Whether I am being pursued as the driver or the keeper
• Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
• Whether the claim is for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? Please provide the names of the parties to it and provide me with a copy of the contract.
• Provide me with a copy of the contract between the claimant and the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim (as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”)
• A plan showing where any signs were displayed
• Details of the signs displayed not limited to e.g. size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Protocol, until your client has complied with my request for further information I would therefore suggest that any action your client is considering be deferred. Upon receipt of the requested information, I anticipate that a full response will be provided within 30 days (I refer you to paragraph 4.2 of the Protocol).

If, however, your client pursues its claim without supplying the further information as requested above, I reserve the right to draw this letter to the attention of the court and seek an adverse cost order due to non-compliance with the Protocol as well as any other order the court deems appropriate.

When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass.

Please confirm that your client's contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court.

I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.

When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response.

It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.

I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.

The service appears to have included sending two letters on Gladstones headed notepaper that amount to False Instruments with FAKE website and FAKE signatures.

I look forward to hearing from you in the due course.
=============================================================

I don't know whether the formal DRAFT is enough to respond.

Need your help. Plzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!

stevegg

Is there anyone can help on the draft?????

Fruitcake

Don't use the expression "without prejudice" unless you really, really understand the implications. I believe that anything marked such cannot be presented in court.

Remove comments about who did what if you intend to rely on the POFA 2012 as part of your defence. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people.

For example paragraph 4 should read, "I ignored all the letters sent to me as The Driver didn't park there."

Complain to your MP and the MP of the location where the alleged event occurred.

stevegg

ok will remove it .

Other than that? Can I send it like that?

Thx:money:

Fruitcake

Reference to The Jopson case might help.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/f6d657adf7df70d27e1dd285688b5701?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

21 Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree.
I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept.
I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”.
Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice.

Fruitcake

stevegg wrote: »

ok will remove it .

Other than that? Can I send it like that?

Thx:money:

I would wait for some of the more court savvy regulars to comment before you send it. There are a small number of legally qualified members who post here so hopefully one or more of them will comment.

beamerguy

stevegg .... congrats, you really have been reading all
about the scam and in particular the fake add-ons

Without prejudice means that you will not be able
to show in court and we don't do that where scammers
such as Gladstones are involved

Wait for the legals on here to respond, let's see what they say.

Did you see the Daily Mail report shown here yesterday
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5907014/daily-mail-article-today-on-ppcs

The editor is asking for more information

editor@thisismoney.co.uk

I spent yesterday evening producing an email which
I will finish today

It's all about the great Gladstones /IPC/IAS scam
and includes the fake £60 add-on from DRP.

You may consider doing the same as this scam must
be exposed and those who run it, investigated

It could be bigger than Wonga

stevegg

This argument and successful case probably will be evidence when the court claim come through.

But great to know the case. very encouraging message.:money:

stevegg

for sure,

I will send mine as well.

thanks to those people who made their contribution to the forum so that I have the opportunity to go through every single post.

KeithP

I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.

That sentence appears twice in your letter.

stevegg

Thanks. that's my mistake.:beer: