UK CPM and IAS Appeals both lost

Umkomaas

jronnquist wrote: »

The main issue is that the sign could easily contain the line: "Under some circumstances it may be possible to obtain a temporary exemption for the purpose of loading and unloading. To inquire about the possibility of obtaining such an exemption, please call the number listed above".

They don't catch many by being helpful! :cool:

jronnquist

To my mind, the issue of the phone number is less of a point in its own right, and more of an auxiliary indictment of the company's general failure when it comes to signage. These signs are not a clear source of useful information to the public, but appear to be designed from the ground up to serve as evidence once a fine is issued. One need only look at the FAQ page on Gladstones' website to see how premeditated the whole racket really is. Each of the questions listed is answered with an indictment of the reader on the particular point in question.

Example:

Q: I have not received any correspondence from your client previously. Can I be liable for the charge?

A: You have been written to on many occasions at the address provided by the DVLA as your last known address. You have provided no reasonable explanation as to why the correspondence wouldn't have been received. Notwithstanding this, this would not impact your liability for the charges as all such correspondence occurred after your liability for the charge arose.

It's quite disgusting, really.

Coupon-mad

It is disgusting - the whole industry is rotten - and we know and agree about Gladstones:

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/all-change-at-gladstones-and-ipc.html

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/06/hopeless-solicitors-gladstones-bungle.html

That's why we come here every day and why PCN fighters like us have lobbied MPs and Parliament, and why there is a new statutory CoP being given consideration following the new Private Parking Bill becoming law.

Ian011

A quick note about chargeable phone numbers.

All 084, 087, 09 and 118 numbers are premium rate. Callers pay both an Access Charge and a Service Charge. The premium is the additional Service Charge paid to the benefit of the called party and their telecoms provider.

All services where the Service Charge levied is more than 7p per call or per minute are classed as Controlled Premium Rate Services. All chatlines, all call connection services and all "adult" entertainment services, irrespective of call cost or prefix used, are also classed as CPRS; this therefore includes all such services operating on 084 numbers. Additionally, services operating on mobile shortcodes where the charge levied by the service provider is more than 10p per call, 10p per minute or 10p per text are also classed as CPRS. Only services classed as CPRS are regulated by the PSA.

Other regulations also cover usage of 084, 087 and 09 numbers. Regulation from BIS bans their use by retailers, traders and passenger transport companies for contact by customers. Regulation from the FCA bans their use by financial services firms. Guidance from the Cabinet Office bans their use by government departments, their agencies and contractors, and by other public services. Older regulation from the Department of Health bans their use by NHS services - including hospitals, GP practices, dentists, pharmacies and opticians.

For the small number of businesses and organisations that can legitimitely still use these numbers, regulation from Ofcom requires the call charges to be displayed immediately adjacent to the number wherever the number is advertised or promoted. Breaches of this regulation are reported to ASA. Browsing ASA tribunal adjudications appears to show there have been zero complaints about this issue since the regulation came into force on 1 July 2015.

See also
-https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/contacting-08-and-03-numbers
-https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/costs-and-billing/how-much-does-a-phone-call-really-cost
-https://planet-numbers.co.uk/news/uk-telephone-number-call-costs-guide/
-http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/41/made
-https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/GEN/7/2.html?timeline=true
-https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmg-guidance-for-customer-service-lines
-https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-telecoms-and-internet/advice-for-consumers/advice/uk-calling/uk-calling-for-businesses
-https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/non-geographic-call-charges.html

There is no shortage of regulation. There is an almost complete absence of wrongdoers being reported to the relevant regulator or enforcement authority.

jronnquist

Ian011 wrote: »

Breaches of this regulation are reported to ASA. Browsing ASA tribunal adjudications appears to show there have been zero complaints about this issue since the regulation came into force on 1 July 2015.

I just went onto the ASA wesbite to make a complaint. There is no category in the drop-down menu for signs of any kind. Are you sure a parking notice would be their concern? Everything listed seems to be focused on advertising.

Coupon-mad

A parking notice is an advertising sign.

Anyway, I encourage you to read CEC16's thread about the hearing last Monday, as it has something new you need to understand for your case too, about how to ensure a Judge knows to disallow the fake added £60.

jronnquist

Complaint submitted to the ASA. I just used "other" as the category. Have received email confirmation and unique reference number. Will be interesting to see what they have to say.

jronnquist

Coupon-mad wrote: »

A parking notice is an advertising sign.

Anyway, I encourage you to read CEC16's thread about the hearing last Monday, as it has something new you need to understand for your case too, about how to ensure a Judge knows to disallow the fake added £60.

I will have a look at it.

I have received a reply from Gladstones. They have acknowledged my change of address. The email is in fact a new Letter Before Claim, and includes a PDF copy of the Pre-Action Protocol and a new 30-day window to answer.

So, do I fill out the PAP and let them know what I plan to argue in court? According to the protocol, which appears to be a government document, the court will not look kindly on my case if I don't engage with Gladstones to try and resolve the matter first.

Coupon-mad

So, do I fill out the PAP and let them know what I plan to argue in court? According to the protocol, which appears to be a government document, the court will not look kindly on my case if I don't engage with Gladstones to try and resolve the matter first.

Nope.

The Court knows full well what Gs are up to, and we know how to handle these LBCs, and it does not involve filling in a form about your income. That form is a generic one but the issue with it is, it starts on the premise that there IS a debt that is potentially owed.

With a parking case, there is no debt and there is nothing to fill in.

Read the NEWBIES thread about LBC stage and send the PPC a SAR and acknowledge to Gs, saying you dent the debt, but notwithstanding that fact, you are seeking debt advice and getting a SAR.

They will then reply with the usual template that we don't want to see again!

This is played out on EVERY Gladstones thread so the most informed posters just read other cases that are ahead of their own, and copy from them. Your case is the same.

jronnquist

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nope.

The Court knows full well what Gs are up to, and we know how to handle these LBCs, and it does not involve filling in a form about your income. That form is a generic one but the issue with it is, it starts on the premise that there IS a debt that is potentially owed.

With a parking case, there is no debt and there is nothing to fill in.

Read the NEWBIES thread about LBC stage and send the PPC a SAR and acknowledge to Gs, saying you dent the debt, but notwithstanding that fact, you are seeking debt advice and getting a SAR.

They will then reply with the usual template that we don't want to see again!

This is played out on EVERY Gladstones thread so the most informed posters just read other cases that are ahead of their own, and copy from them. Your case is the same.

Thank you.

Just a quick question. As far as I can see the forms asking for financial information are only applicable if you do not check the "I dispute the debt" box. If you do check this box you are then asked to make your case on a separate sheet of paper. Would this not be the time to present the arguments you intend to make to the court on the understanding that Gladstones might see the futility of going on and advise their client accordingly? Might sound a bit naive, but just thinking out loud here. The document does say, after all, that the court will expect to see evidence that both parties used the protocol to avoid legal proceedings where possible.