Gladstones LBC Response

Rugbybarmy

I received their witness statement yesterday (several false statements in there - which can be evidenced) and have started to dissect it in my witness statement.

In their appendix they have finally included the agreement with the landowner. It is an open ended agreement dated in 2014 and applies restrictions on parking in a disabled bay without a blue badge, parking on double yellows, no parking on the access road unless loading/unloading.

It makes no mention about permits or running a permit scheme (the driver and/or keeper is being pursued for not displaying a valid permit).

Am I correct in saying that the Claimant has no authority to issue a claim for this, as they have only been given permission to run a scheme with the restrictions listed above?

Coupon-mad

Yes that would be something to say in your WS. Plus other things, and CERTAINLY this about the signs and the Consumer Rights Act:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76494155#Comment_76494155

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6003430/letter-of-claim-by-bw-legal&page=2

You need to sit down and read CEC16's thread* as your signs probably only vaguely mention the added 'costs' for debt recovery, that they cannot recover EVEN IF the sign has it on.


*NO LINK GIVEN - GO FIND IT - GOOD PRACTICE!

Rugbybarmy

Thanks for that Coupon-mad.

Interesting. So to summarise that point, claiming anything over and above the value on the NtK is in breach of CRA2015 as it fails the fairness test points 6,10 and 14:

• Point 6 - disproportionate claim value
• Point 10 - The consumer is bound by the contract with no real opportunity to properly acquainted with the contract (no explanation or quantification of potential additional charges)
• Point 14 - ‘A term which has the object or effect of giving the trader the discretion to decide the price payable under the contract after the consumer has become bound by it, where no price or method of determining the price is agreed when the consumer becomes bound.’ Costs additional to the £100 stated on the sign are in breach of this.

I am going to town on some of their WS content - falsely claiming they have sent copies of the landowner agreement, lack of audit proof on the signs and site map (regarding signage number and location being wrong on the site plan) and pursuing a charge without authority (not authorised to issue permits under their agreement). Would this be sufficient grounds for costs for unreasonableness?