Letter before claim from Gladstones Solicitors

raddoc

My wife received a parking charge notice for £100 in the post from a company called ES Parking Enforcement from July 2018.

Parking at the site (a small retail park in Trafford Manchester) is free but the alleged contravention is for "leaving the site". There are a few shops facing the car park, an Iceland, a newsagent and an Aldi (which has since closed down). It is not clear that it is a contravention to 'leave the site' if visiting the parade of shops directly adjacent to the car park. The actual 'Site' is not defined either.

Their website shows additional photos and they do show an occupant getting out of the car and walking to the adjacent parade of shops.

I appealed to ES Parking and then to IAS on the grounds of unclear and ambiguous signage but both were rejected. The PCN was then raised to £125. I have now received "Letter before Claim" from Gladstones Solicitors demanding £160 or they will commence court proceedings. Am furious about this as have parked there for many years without a problem and there is no indication that the rules had changed as to which shops could be visited.

I would appreciate thoughts on how likely I am to win in court and how time consuming and difficult it is to fight Gladstones. How should I respond to the LBC ?

KeithP

Hi Raddoc, welcome to the forum.

One thing you must make clear before going too far down this road... who exactly is ES Parking pursuing?

You post is unclear. You say your wife received a PCN, but go on to say "I appealed to ES Parking..." and "I have now received "Letter before Claim"...".

Who is the Registered Keeper of the car?

Has the driver's identity been revealed to the PPC?

raddoc

Apologies for my ambiguity - ES Parking via Gladstones are pursuing my wife as registered keeper. I am doing all the case preparation and would be accompanying her to court should it go that far and would want to be able to argue the case with her, hence the wording of my thread. I think in our naivety we disclosed the driver's identity when appealing to ES Parking/IAS in the early stages of this case - recognise now from other threads that this was a mistake in retrospect.

raddoc

Any comments on this as a response to Gladstone's LBC ? Thanks


I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of XXXXXXX.

This letter gave no details or evidence of any infringement and just a total amount outstanding of £160.00 and details of how to pay. I deny any debt to your client.

Your recent letter dated XXXXXXX gives provides limited information, but does give a date of charge (XXXXXXX) and a location of charge (XXXXXXXX).Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon. I request further information in writing as I consider your Letter Before Claim to be woefully inadequate. I note particularly that you choose to refer to paragraphs 2.1c of the Practice Direction rather than focus on your obligation in paragraph 6 to provide adequate details of your claim. None of the following elements are contained in your letter:

• The basis on which the claim is made
• A clear summary of the facts upon which the claim is made
• An explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated
• Disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.

Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents/information that the protocol requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim. As solicitors, I presume you are familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague 'Letter before Claim' ignoring much of the pre-existing Practice Direction.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action.
2. What the details of the claim are, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated.
3. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
4. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
5. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
6. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
7. What is the basis of the additional £60 charge? If it is for legal services, has your client already paid it?
8. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form


Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings.

Furthermore, I have sent your client a Subject Access Request and I therefore require a restriction of data processing and that the case should be put on hold pending this.

Yours faithfully

The_Deep

Let them take you to court, they will crash and burn.

Leaving site is almost imposwible for them to win. They must prove that all th occupants of the car left the site, not just the driver. That someone warned the motorist of the financial consequences of leaving site, (mitigation of loss), tht it is not an unfair term in a consumer contract, and that it is not contrary to the Human Rights Act.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2150607/Landmark-parking-case-means-thousands-overturn-fines.html

Let us suppose that your brand new Monte Christo Panama hat , (£300 in Harrods), blows off site, do you not run after it. Of course you do, silly solicitor persons.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. 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.

raddoc

This is Parking company's Data Protection officer response to SAR (they have sent me copies of PCN and photos of infringement):

"I am obliged to inform you that under GDPR there are exemptions to what information we have to provide, namely: Legal advice and proceedings – Data Controllers do not have to disclose data which is covered by legal professional privilege. All correspondence that our company has had with our solicitors would be covered under “legal professional privilege”, and any correspondence that our solicitors have handled internally would I believe be covered under “legal professional privilege”.

I must bring to your attention that our company also is exempt from giving you access in respect of Confidential references – Data Controllers do not have to provide subject access to references they have confidentially given in relation to a data Subjects portfolio.

I have checked our system and can confirm that the enclosed data and associated PCN is the only record we have against your name, or against the specific vehicle

With regards to the evidence about an additional £60 demanded by Gladstone’s. I am not at liberty to get into dialogue with regards this matter as the companies Data protection officer. You would have to make that request directly on Gladstone’s."

Coupon-mad

Reply and say the £60 is not being demanded by Gladstones, as Gs are not the claimant. The parking firm is the claimant and Gs have said £60 was spent on debt collection stage, so as that was expenditure to another firm and related to your data that was shared, you want to see proof that £60 was spent.

If they fail to address this and keep trying to hide behind “legal professional privilege” (LOLOLOL!! I've seen that drivel spouted somewhere before, by some idiot) then you will report them to the Information Commissioner to investigate their obstructiveness.

raddoc

Gladstones have sent a reply from which they say has to be returned within 30 days. Should I do this ? Option D is "I dispute the debt" and requests an explanation of why the debt is disputed on a separate piece of paper and supporting documentation. I am happy to take my chances in court. Why should I provide evidence to them at this stage which would enable them to provide a counter argument in court or am I harming our chances in a small claim court by not complying ? Can Gladstones get a CCJ without the case being heard in court ?

KeithP

From your description it sounds like Gladstones have sent you another Letter of Claim.

You need to reply to that.

The first few paragraphs of post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread tell you exactly how to react to that letter.

Castle

raddoc wrote: »

Had another letter from Gladstones claiming their client has "compelling evidence" of my wife's guilt. This can only be the photos showing her walking off the "site" towards a set of adjacent shops.

Photos of the data subject must be provided as part of their Parking Company's SAR response.

The_Deep

How do they know that the lady in question is your wife?

In any case, should they not have approached her and warned her of the financial consequences of leaving the site? It is called "mitigation of loss",