Gladstones LBC Response

Rugbybarmy

Hi All


I have read through the Newbies thread and followed the very detailed advice on there, and on many of the individual threads of similar issues.


A quick summary of where I am at:


The car was parked in a hotel carpark, of which me, my wife and several friends were customers. The ticket is for parking without a valid permit. At the time of parking, I was on crutches (sports injury), it was during the very snowy and icy period we had in the winter and all disabled bays were in use. We were told verbally by the reception staff that leaving the vehicle where it was eventually ticketed would be ok. Obviously we can't prove this and the hotel don't want to get involved in the dispute.


All correspondence from the PPC (Property and Parking Management) prior to the LBC (issued by Gladstones) was not responded to. We though that the issue had gone away as we hadn't heard anything after the initial ticket for a long time. I know this is not a defence, but my young daughter had developed a habit of hiding much of our mail (we found LOTS in her cubby hole!), so I subsequently found copies of an attempt at a NtK and reminder. that had followed on from the ticket. I believe that if I had appealed and taken this up with POPLA, the appeal would be upheld on the basis of entrance signs, lighting and other particulars that have been advised on other threads, but obviously I had fallen outside of the initial PPC appeals window to get a POPLA code from them.


Following the forum advice, I responded to the LBC within the 30 days stipulated on the letter, using the template reply, asking for them to send a compliant LBC, from Parking - Letter Before County Court Claim (LBCCC) - Fight back! Guidance Thread.

I received a reply from them. I haven't seen this response in any other thread:

Good afternoon,


thank you for your correspondence [The poor grammar was noted]


I have attached the bundle of documents our Client would seek to rely on should a claim be issued in this matter, for which the basis of the charge can be ascertained.


In light of the attached, please make payment of £160.00 before XXXX.


In the event payment is not received, we will proceed with our Client's current instructions in this matter to issue a claim without further correspondence.

The bundle included some photos of a ticket on the car, a photo of one of the car park signs, a copy of the ticket, NtK, a print-out example of the car park signs and a map of the land with the location of where the signs are situated.


I'm particularly unhappy with the final statement regarding issuing a claim without further correspondence.


I have drafted a reply and would be very grateful if someone could give it the once-over before I send. I am fully prepared to go to court if they proceed and feel that I would stand a good chance of winning, having read everything on here about Gladstones on the many different threads.


Draft reply:

Dear Gladstone Solicitors

Parking and Property Management Limited v XXXXXXXX
Proposed Legal Proceedings


Thank you for your letter of XXXX reference XXXXXXXX.

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of the above letter.

I have read and examined the Pre-Action Protocol, referenced in your deficient letter before claim, reference XXXXXXX.





With respect to The Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, Annex A Para 2, your letter before claim must contain specific information, of which you have not fully supplied or disclosed to me. This is despite my written request for a compliant letter. I find it highly inappropriate that a legal department, staffed by solicitors, have not produced a compliant letter before claim. It is concerning that I, an unrepresented person with no legal training, am having to explain what is legally required of you just so that I can adhere to my legal obligations for a disputed matter of which you are pursuing me for.

Please send me a fully compliant Letter Before Claim so that I can deal with my obligations, prior to the commencement of court action, as required by the Practice Direction.

Below is an extract of the Practice Direction dealing with the requirements for a Claimant's Letter Before Claim, for your information:





Annex A

2. Claimant’s letter before claim

2.1
The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –

(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant;
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated; and
(6) details of any funding arrangement (within the meaning of rule 43.2(1)(k) of the CPR) that has been entered into by the claimant.

2.2
The letter should also –
(1) list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely;
(2) set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this;
(3) state the date by which the claimant considers it reasonable for a full response to be provided by the defendant; and
(4) identify and ask for copies of any relevant documents not in the claimant's possession and which the claimant wishes to see.








Your Letter Before Claim should enable me to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information (2.1, 1). It should also state the basis on which the claim is being made (2). Is this a Contract claim, a Trespass claim or another type of claim? If this is a contract claim it must tell me if this is a claim for money agreed under the terms of an alleged contract or if this is a Breach of Contract claim.





It should state a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based (3). Your original Letter Before Claim identifies the failure to settle a debt (of which is disputed) and does not identify what the charge is for nor what the alleged debt is based on. It identifies the date of a charge but provides no information as to the time, nor does it expressly refer to a parking event in any form whatsoever.



If financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated (5). I am entitled to this information. Simply stating a charge amount is insufficient to comply with the Practice Direction.



The letter should also list the essential documents on which the claimant intends to rely (2.2, 1). Thank you for the provision of the copies of documents preceding the defective letter before claim. Please clarify if you are pursuing me as the driver or the keeper. If I am being pursued as the keeper, please provide the relevant and POFA 2012 compliant documentation of which you seek to rely on. I have no objections to you adding to this list once you have seen my defence, should the matter reach court proceedings but I remind you that the defence will not be issued until after the start of proceedings, and this list of documents is required to be provided to you before proceedings are started, under the Pre-action Conduct steps, set down by the court




The letter should also set out the form of ADR (if any) that the claimant considers the most suitable and invite the defendant to agree to this (2.1, 2). I believe that it makes sense to comply with the Practice Direction's requirement to refer this matter to POPLA, which is the appropriate form of ADR for parking disputes, and invite you to provide me with a POPLA code. I must also point out that the BPA Code of Practice does not stipulate any time restrictions on utilizing ADR where parking tickets are issued and disputed.

The final paragraph in your letter referenced states that a claim will be processed “without further correspondence if payment is not received”. I refer you to Para 2 of the Pre-Action Protocol, in which it is stated that the purpose of the Protocol is “enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure”. Neither items of correspondence offer these options. I find it in complete disregard of the Practice Direction, an insidious abuse of the court procedure and a flagrant attempt to intimidate me into paying a disputed charge. I find this stance and behaviour unbefitting of a member of the legal profession.

I remind you of the Court's powers to apply sanctions for non-compliance with the Practice Direction under Para 4, and expect to receive a fully compliant Letter Before Claim within 14 days. If you do not send you a fully compliant Letter Before Claim as requested, I will seek the assistance of the court, pointing out that all correspondence will be presented before the judge should this matter arrive in court.



Yours faithfully

Any feedback and advice would be gratefully received.

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

Unfortunately you are using a very old version of a LBC response.
Just one example, there hasn't been an 'Annex A' in the Practice Direction for many years - at least three.

Perhaps you should look at some of the robust LBC responses linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Rugbybarmy

Thank you for the feedback Keith.


I followed your advice and found plenty of more up to date examples and posted a much more robust and relevant reply letter within the timeframe they gave on their deficient LBC to me.


I have proof of postage that it was sent over 30 days ago.


Since then I've heard nothing.


I have drafted another letter to them pointing out that as of yet I still haven't received a compliant LBC (or anything at all) and that despite my written request, they haven't replied within the 30 days stipulated in the Pre-Action Protocol.


Having read about Gladstones ineptitude, I am fully expecting a claim form sometime soon but want to know if it is worth me sending this letter?


Is it likely to help my defence, should they file a court claim, or will it re-focus them and draw attention back on their dormant case?


Many thanks

Fruitcake

You have already asked them twice for more info, so it's up to you whether you ask again now or wait until you get the claim itself.
The more you show they are being unreasonable the more it might help in court, but that will come down to playing judge bingo.

A complaint to the SRA wouldn't hurt, although so far it has never had any effect. If everyone complained to them then something "might" get done.

Meanwhile, please complain to your MP about this unregulated scam.
One of the MPs in the debate linked from the NEWBIES mentions that they have contacted the SRA about a solicitor's actions.
Quote that comment to your MP.

Rugbybarmy

I spoke/posted too soon. I have received a response from Gladstones:


We write further to your correspondence dated XXXXX.

Although our letter before claim provides all information required by the Pre-Action Protocol, for the sake of completeness I have attached the information sheet and reply form, along with our FAQs, to this letter.

The bundle of documents attached to my previous letter makes our Client's claim against you quite clear. The sum is sought as a result of an unpaid charge incurred on XXXXXX at the location known as XXXXX. In order to park accourding to the terms and conditions as made clear by the sign attached my previous letter, it was necessary to display a valid permit; upon parking not in accordance with these terms, the charge was correctly issued and the fee in lieu of compliance as laid out on the sign was accepted. A copy of the relevant sign was included in the bundle attached to my previous letter.

A charge was affixed to the windscreen, to which our Client did not receive a response or payment. As a result, an application was made to the DVLA for the registered keeper's details. A notice to keeper was sent to you on XXXX; a copy of which was attached to my previous letter. The letter also makes clear that you are pursued as the keeper of the vehicle because a driver has not been names, you were provided the opportunity at this stage to provide the full name and serviceable address of the driver in the event you knew this information. Our records show that to this date a driver has not been named, therefore POFA Schedule 4 provides our Client is able to pursue you for the outstanding debt.

For the sake of completeness, we will not be providing a copy of the contract between the Claimant and the landowner as it bears no relevance on the contract between you and the Claimant.

Furthermore information concerning any specific authority to issue a claim against you will not be provided.

In light of this and my previous letter, please provide payment of £160 before XX December 2018. In the event payment is not received, we will proceed to issue a claim against you without further correspondence.




Should I reply, or wait until they file the claim? The contents of the letter don't have any impact on my defence on deficient signage, poor lighting etc.


A few other points/concerns/questions:


Where do I sit regarding their POFA statement? The NtK is deficient (as identified in my letter to them; no period of parking, no explanation of the charge value or basis of claim etc) and as such, limits their ability to use POFA as the mechanism to pursue me. Is this a valid point for the pre-emptive defence?


Regarding the outright refusal to establish their authority to issue the claim or establish any interest in the land from the PPC, are these statements worth anything?


Finally, the £160 charge - they have not provided a breakdown of the additional £60.


In the meantime, I am going to kick up a bit of a stink with the hotel as try again to get them to deal with it from their side and urge them to cancel it with the PPC.


Any feedback and advice would be gratefully received.

Coupon-mad

Yes to all of the above, lobby the Hotel as this is your last chance.

Reply to Gs by email, a couple of days before 14th December 2018 and ask them 3 or 4 questions that they have to reply to, in order to make the case get past December which is a harder time for most people to be dealing with claims.

Rugbybarmy

Thanks Coupon-mad.


The hotel seem a little more interested, will try to get it cancelled with the PPC but can't guarantee they can. Better feedback than last time!


One thing I have noticed - discrepancies on the map (sent by Gladstones on behalf of the PPC, after requesting) indentifying the land the PPC covers and their marked location of the signs, and where the signs actually are.


A quick Google Maps search shows there are signs that aren't where indicated on the document, similarly some signs aren't where shown on the map. Also of interest is that the sign shown/photographed in one of the photos of the vehicle, is not present on the marked map.


I'm sure I've read something about this in the forum but can't find anything relevant. Is this any use to me at this stage i.e. past the POPLA stage.


Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

It will be useful as court defence evidence much later, if the Hotel do not get this cancelled.

Rugbybarmy

The hotel aren't going to get it cancelled - they say that they've been told too much time has now passed for them to do so.....


I'm currently drafting a reply to Gladstones:

Dear Gladstones Solicitors

Parking and Property Management Limited v XXXXXX
Proposed Legal Proceedings

I write to you following your last correspondence dated XXXXX; your reference XXXXXXX


Thank you for sending a copy of the reply form with your last letter.


Your letter does not, however, answer the points identified in my letter to you.

• Details of the original charge and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added.
  
  • It is evident that £60 has been added to the original charge. As per Pre-Action Conduct And Protocols Para 6 (a), how has this additional £60 been calculated? This must be a realised cost; a ‘pre-determined and nominal contribution to your Client’s losses’ is insufficient detail and does not explain how it has been calculated.
• Whether I am being pursued as the driver or the keeper.
  
  • You have clarified that I am being pursued as keeper.
• Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
  
  • You have established that your client is relying on 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.
  
  • You have not clarified this. You have clarified that there is a claim against a charge for an alleged parking infraction. Please clarify whether the alleged infraction constitutes a breach of contract, trespass or another contravention.
  • Your letter draws reference to a sign from the site of the alleged incident. The sign states that additional costs ‘may’ be incurred and that the driver would be liable. As I am being pursued as the keeper, please clarify the charge amount. Also, as per Schedule 4 POFA 2012 Para 4(5), the maximum that can be claimed according to the Act is less than what is being demanded of me. Again, please clarify your client’s stance.
• 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”)
  
  • I refer you to Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims Para 4.1. I have requested this as your client has not demonstrated that they have authority to bring about this claim. As per Para 5.2, please either provide this to me or explain why it is unavailable.

Details of the signs displayed not limited to e.g. size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

• An example sign has been provided.

Now they have included the reply form with their latest letter. Do I respond to it? I'm not sure where I sit with this aspect, as disputing the debt (box D) or the 'I don't know' option (box C) inhibit their ability to issue a court claim by at least 30 days.


I haven't elaborated on the discrepancies in sign positions or the missing 'period of parking' on the NtK and the original ticket/notice to driver. Should I leave this out until the court stage?


Please advise.


Thanks again.

The_Deep

You seem to be up to speed on this, have you complained to your MP? If not, perhaps you should.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

Rugbybarmy

This one is still alive and kicking. I have the SAR info now. I haven't written to my MP yet - they are a prominent central figure in dealing with the B word so I will hold off for now as I doubt I will hear anything meaningful back from them anytime soon.


Latest reply (outside 30 days) from Gladdys:


Thank you for your correspondence dated XXXX, the contents of which have been noted. We apologise for the delay in our response however as no further action has been taken we trust you agree no prejudice has been suffered as a result.

We will answer your queries in the same sequence.

Our clients accredited trade association is the IPC. I would like to refer you to their COP, page 33 which states: “Where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 unless court proceedings have been initiated.”

This is where the additional £60 has been added to the sum. However I would also like to point out our client does not issue parking charge notices on the basis of recovering a loss. Our client is reliant on the case of ParkingEye vs Beavis, which states a PCN can be issued to act as a deterrent in order for our client to manage the land in accordance with the landowners wishes.

Upon entering private land, the driver enters into a unilateral contract, which binds them to the T&Cs, and entering by performance. If the driver does not abide by the TCs there is a contractual breach. Therefore the driver entered into a contract on XXXXX which is when it was breached. The named parties would be yourself and our client. The contract are the signs around the site where the vehicle was parked.

As we are pursuing you as the keeper of the vehicle, it is presumed you were the driver on the date the indecent occurred, unless proven otherwise. You have not transferred liability to a nominated driver. Our client had offered you to transfer liability in a letter, you chose not to reply.

Our client does not need to show that it owns the land, only that it had the authority to manage the land in accordance with the wishes of the landowner. We confirm that our client had such authority, but given that the contractual arrangement between our client and their client is commercially sensitive, it will only be disclosed should it be necessary for a court to view it.

We don not have the details of the sign as you have requested. However all signs are audited and approved from the IPC







My draft reply to them:






I write to you following your late correspondence dated XXXXX.

In previous correspondence you have stated that you are pursuing me as the keeper, not the driver, pursuant to POFA 2012. In your latest letter you state you are pursuing me as the keeper and assuming that I am the driver on the date of the alleged incident. There is no presumption in law that the keeper is the driver. Further to this point, there is no legal requirement for the keeper to name the driver. Additionally, as this pursuit of money is an allegation against me, you must prove that I am the driver and not for me to prove that I wasn’t.

Either you are pursuing me as the driver, in which case I put it to strict proof that I was the driver and therefore rendering the use of POFA2012 irrelevant, or you are pursing me as the keeper and relying on POFA2012. Having previously clarifying that you are relying on the provisions of POFA2012 and pursuing me as the keeper, I find it unreasonable and prejudiced that you are taking this current stance.

You state that the parking signs are the alleged contract that the driver entered into. Within the example sign you have previously sent to me it states, ‘Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge and for which the driver will be liable.’ Your clients own alleged contract states that the driver, not the keeper, is liable for any additional charge. The fact that the IPC stipulates that your client can add up to £60 for overdue payments for an alleged breach of contract charge is irrelevant as the alleged contract limits your client to pursuing the driver only for that amount. If this matter should continue to be pursued, please drop this element of the charge or explain to me why you now seek to alter the terms of an alleged contractual agreement (that is in itself disputed).

You state ‘Upon entering private land, the driver enters into a unilateral contract…’. This in itself compounds my point above regarding the pursuit of monies sought that are more than the maximum amount asked for in Notice to Keeper, this being strictly prohibited by POFA2012 and an veiled attempt at double recovery. You also state that the named parties to this alleged contract are myself and your client. As the keeper I cannot have entered into any contract.

It is disputed that any driver would enter into the kind of contract offered on your clients parking signs. ParkingEye vs Beavis is wholly different and bears no relevance in this instance as in that case it was accepted that a contract had been entered into and that the signs were clear and prominent. A photo of one of the signs has been provided in earlier correspondence and it is quite clear that the location, text size and the conditions pertaining to any financial repercussions are not clearly visible, even on a close up photo. It is also worth of note that the photo was taken at night, with a camera flash as the sign is not illuminated; the IPC Code of Practice page 23 states that signs should be illuminated where enforcement takes place outside daylight hours, as is the case here. Furthermore to the points in this paragraph, upon visiting the site of the alleged incident, the signs are in different locations to that of which are indicated on the site plan map you have previously provided. In fact, the sign that is shown on the photo is not indicated on the site plan map at all.

Regarding the lack of closure on details of the signs displayed from my previous letter dated xxxxx, in the absence of this requested information, please confirm and provide proof from your client the date and outcome of the most recent audit of this site and its signage, and an approval date for these signs from the IPC. I contest that they are within the requirements of the Code of Practice and with this matter still ongoing I reserve the right to make a complaint to the IPC separately from this matter.

Finally, I must address your comments regarding your client’s authority to manage the land on behalf of the landowner. For the 3rd time, I refer you to Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims Para 4.1. I am yet again requesting this as your client has not demonstrated that they have authority to bring about this claim. Commercially sensitive content can be redacted. Your statement about only disclosing it should it be necessary for a court to view it is prejudice against me and in disregard to the Pre-Action Protocols.

Please re-evaluate your position with this matter. Your stance and correspondence thus far are completely unreasonable. Should this matter escalate into court action, I shall present this before the judge and costs sought and as a direct result of the stress cause and the time spent defending my position to these vexatious and unsubstantiated allegations.




Am I giving too much away at this stage of the game or do you think this is good to go?