Letter Before Claim - Gladstone solicitors - after 16 months

ajent_a

Hi All
I received 2 letters in the same envelope today from Gladstone solicitors demanding payment for a PCN (windscreen ticket) from 16 months ago. I have written to them with appeal letters and fortunately kept scanned copies of the sent and recieved post. The last response I sent was to DRP December 2017.

Reason for stating that the 2 letter were from the same envelope is because one is dated as created more than 40 days ago is meant to give me 30 days to respond!
And the second is dated as created 10 days ago giving me 14 days to respond! This means I only have 4 DAYS TO RESPOND!!

The envelope in which they came in had some sort of bulk postage franking bar code lines printed on it but no date. Is this a deliberate attempt to stop people from appealing and them to claim to the court that letter weren't responded to in time?

Please see letters:

---

LETTER 1
Our Reference: XXXXXX
XX October 2018
Dear XXX
Re :
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM
Our Client : UK Car Park Management Limited
Amount Due: 160.00
Vehicle Reg: XXXXX

We act on behalf of the Claimant and we have now been instructed to commence legal action against you to recover the amount due above, as you have failed to settle the debts that are owing, or provide a valid reason for non-payment. We understand that our client has written to you to request payment but the amounts are still outstanding.

PCN Number: XXXXX
Date of Charge: XX/08/2017
Location Charge: XXXXXXX Mosaic - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX St. Albans Hertfordshire. AL1 3TF
Amount : 160.00

The charge amount includes £60 claimed by our Client for the time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge. The amount is a pre-determined and nominal contribution to our Client's losses as a direct result of your non-payment.
In the event the outstanding debt is not paid in full, we are instructed to commence legal proceedings. Our Client is satisfied that it has sufficient evidence to support this claim and, if necessary, will rely on this evidence in Court.
If you believe you have a valid reason for non-payment, you are able to reply pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 ('the PAP'). A version of the Information Sheet and Reply Form taken from the PAP can be completed on our website. Before completing the online Reply Form, you must first create a login, for which you will require your reference (XXXXXXXXX). Alternatively, you can request a paper version (see overleaf).
We refer you to Paragraph 2.1(c) of the PAP which obliges the parties to act reasonably and proportionately.
Please pay or reply within 30 days of the date of this letter. Any reply received outside of the 30 day period may not be considered as legal proceedings are likely to have been issued.
To discuss the matter with us, please call 01565 655 477.
Yours Sincerely
Gladstones Solicitors

---

LETTER 2
Our Reference: XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXth November 2018
Dear XXXX
Re :
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM
Our Client : UK Car Park Management Limited Amount Due: 160.00 Vehicle Reg: XXXXXX
GLADSTONES SOLICITORS
We wrote to you advising we are instructed to commence legal action against you to recover a private parking charge (or charges). A copy of the letter is attached for ease of reference. We note you have not settled the debt or provided a valid reason for non-payment.
In the event the outstanding debt is not paid in full, we are instructed to commence legal proceedings. Our Client is satisfied that it has sufficient evidence to support this claim and, if necessary, will rely on this evidence in Court.
If you believe you have a valid reason for non-payment, we are extending the time in which you are able to respond via the Reply Form by 14th December 2018. A version of the Information Sheet and Reply Form taken from the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims can be completed on our website. Before completing the online Reply Form, you must first create a login, for which you will require your reference (xxxxxxxxxx). Alternatively, you can request a paper version (see overleaf).
We refer you to Paragraph 2.1(c) of the PAP which obliges the parties to act reasonably and proportionately.
Please pay or reply before 14th December 2018. Any reply received after this date may not be considered as legal proceedings are likely to have been issued.
Yours Sincerely
Gladstones Solicitors

---

Please advise what I should do, letter writing isn’t my strength, I used the template letters from this forum to appeal this ticket on the first instance. I read on the sticky that I should send an SAR to the parking company, do I also send one to Gladstones?

I will add the previous letters sent and received shortly.

ajent_a

My first appeal 16 months ago:

Appeals Department
UK Car Park Management Ltd
PO BOX 3114
Lancing
BN15 5BR

Date XX/08/2017


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No XXXXXX

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a) The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is extravagant and unconscionable when compared to local parking charges issued by the Council so cannot be justified.

b) As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is to deter.

c) There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.

d) Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

e) There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. Following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, express consent must be obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent. You have failed to meet these requirements and you did not serve the driver with the terms by durable medium.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,





XXXXXXXXX

Pirate_Parker

"We refer you to Paragraph 2.1(c) of the PAP which obliges the parties to act reasonably and proportionately. "

Please ask them if artificially inflating the cost contrary to Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 is considered "fair and reasonable". If it is, then feel free to issue court proceedings, I'm sure a judge will be more than happy to review your vexatious claim and award me my costs in defending this allegation.

Pirate_Parker

Also, it is now £19 per hour in costs for a litigant in person, not £18.

"Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership. "

statements like this show they have got under your skin, and trashing their business could land you with a libel claim instead of a parking charge. Keep your coms factual not ranty.

Pirate_Parker

Also, remove part 3. To withdraw from a contract without proving it's a repudiatory breach will mean that a contract in fact did exist and you may be liable.

ajent_a

XX AUGUST 2017
Dear XXXXXXXXX

PICTURES OF CAR AND NOTICE

Thank you for your appeal against the above PCN.
We have carefully considered your appeal but on this occasion, I am writing to inform you that your appeal has been unsuccessful as a breach of the terms and conditions of parking occurred. The decision has been made on the basis of:

A valid permit was not clearly displayed in the vehicle windscreen.

The photographic evidence of your vehicle supports the above statement.

Signage clearly states "A VALID UK CPM PERMIT MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED IN THE FRONT WINDSCREEN AT ALL TIMES".

In order for a vehicle to be parked correctly a valid CPM parking permit must be clearly displayed within the vehicle windscreen at all times. The photographic evidence of your vehicle shows that at the time of the contravention a valid CPM parking permit was not displayed, therefore you had breached parking restrictions within the area and were subsequently issued with a parking charge notice.

It is the driver's responsibility when leaving their vehicle unattended to observe the area and check parking is permitted. There is clear signage placed throughout the parking areas stating that the land is private property and restrictions apply.

The photographic evidence of your vehicle shows that you are within a clear view of one of the many warning signs throughout the development; I have circled in yellow above to alleviate any doubt. All signage states the terms and conditions of parking within the restricted area. Upon reading the signage you have contractually agreed to pay a parking charge fee as restrictions were breached. it is the driver' s responsibility to ensure parking is permitted prior to leaving the vehicle unattended Within the restricted area.

On 4th November 2015 the Supreme Court made Judgment in the case parking Eye Vs Beavis. In the Judgment the Lords found the case 6-1 in favour of the parking company over the motorist. They uled that "the parking charge is nei ther extravagant nor unconscionable . Having found that the charge was not excessive and reflected a deterrent rather than being extravagant . This latest ruling has brought a rapid cease to the propagated debate concerning genuine pre-estimate of loss. Therefore in your appeal your claims Of a disproportionate fee not reflecting a genuine pre estimate of loss cannot be used as a reason for your appeal to be allowed. I encourage you to look into the below publicised case as the Judgment delivers much needed clarity to motorists, landowners and the Parking Industry and is binding upon the Small Claims Court, the High Court and any Independent Appeals Service. A full copy of the Judgment can be found here.

Please note. You now have 14 days from the date of this letter to make payment at the reduced fee of £60

ajent_a

This was my response to their rejection and a formal demand last year:

Date xx/10/2017

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No XXXXXXX

I challenged this 'PCN' as keeper of the car on XX/08/2017 on these main grounds:

a) The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is extravagant and unconscionable when compared to local parking charges issued by the Council so cannot be justified.

b) As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is to deter.

c) There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.

d) Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.

e) There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

On your response letter you attempted to challenge ground B upon your claim that clear signage was presented.

After careful consideration of your response I still stand with my assertion as stated on ground B for the following reasons:
- The signs were not seen and The wording is ambiguous:
- the location is too high up and not behind parking bay.
- was likely covered by high back van at time of parking.
- looks like a poster stuck on the wall and not predominant.
- print too small which is prejudiced against sight deficiency.
- doesn’t follow standard residents permit signage design.

Here are examples of standard uk residents parking only/permit holders signs compared to what you claim was your sign.

Standard signs Your (close up) sign


For these reasons supporting ground B and also the fact that you have failed to provide a considered response to grounds a, c, d and e my challenge still stands.
So to reiterate the purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. Following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, express consent must be obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent. You have failed to meet these requirements and you did not serve the driver with the terms by durable medium.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,





XXXXXXXXXX

ajent_a

Following the above letter I recieved a letter from DRP to which i responded in December last year.

The letter before claim is a response after 12 months.

ajent_a

Pirate_Parker wrote: »

Also, it is now £19 per hour in costs for a litigant in person, not £18.

"Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership. "

statements like this show they have got under your skin, and trashing their business could land you with a libel claim instead of a parking charge. Keep your coms factual not ranty.

This was in the actual template letter from this site last year.

KeithP

I get the impression from the letters in your opening post that LETTER1 is allegedly a copy of a letter sent earlier.

LETTER2 is recent and saying that as you haven't replied to LETTER1 they'll give you another 14 days to respond.

Not sure why you have since posted lots of other stuff.
Is this the equivalent of tossing the file across the table and saying "you sort it out"?

ajent_a

Pirate_Parker wrote: »

Also, remove part 3. To withdraw from a contract without proving it's a repudiatory breach will mean that a contract in fact did exist and you may be liable.

Sorry Pitrate Parker but this is from the letter I sent last year, I merely provided these for insight. Please advise what I should do about the 2 letter before claim on the 1st post.