LBC from Gladstone

Linda992

Hi Guys,

I've been reading posts in the forum for a while. Ignored the letters from debt recovery companies for 7 months and finally received a LBC from Gladstone.
It's certainly a genuine one and I was given 30 days either to settle the payment or they'll start the legal proceedings.

I'm preparing a letter to Gladstone to ask for evidence, etc (template found in this forum, thanks!!!)
Apart from doing that, I'd like to post my story here and see if any of you can kindly give me some advice?

All the parking tickets were received at the same location, different dates.
30.05.18 I saw a parking ticket on the windscreen. Found a bit annoyed but paid £60 the next day.
03.06.18 - 15.06.18 3 or 4 parking tickets were posted to my home address regarding parking at the same location between 01.05 - 26.05. I find it horrendous that they didn't put the previous tickets on the windscreen and only started sending me the tickets after i paid the last one.

Then i wrote a couple of complaint letters to UK CPM and of coz they refused that.
I've tried to contact the property management company and they refused to help either. And btw, I've moved out from that place a few months ago.

In the past few months, as you could imagine, i received a dozen of mails from debt recovery company and they were all ignored.

Until the LBC, I realised it has to be taken seriously. My argument is 1. CPM should have put the tickets on my windscreen instead of posting them to me after i paid the last one. 2. There are arguments between CPM and council regarding that area. The signage is on and off and now it's permanently off the wall.

Can I use any of the two to fight against them on court? Or i should pay the fine to solve it once for all?

Any comment will be greatly appreciated.

Le_Kirk

If it is a genuine LBC then you need to prepare for the court claim forms to drop through your letter box. They will likely come from Northampton CCBC (and can look a bit scammy, according to some posters - but they won't be) and that is when you need to do the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) using MCOL. Until the claim form arrives, read the NEWBIE thread post # 2, there is great info there to help you through the process.

You can of course, use all and any of your story in your defence but it starts with legal argument (check out the concise defences posted by Bargepole that you can adapt) and you tell your story (what happened) in your Witness Statement.

The_Deep

I've tried to contact the property management company and they refused to help either.

Are you a leaseholder, occupant, tenant, visitor, or a trespasser?

They are not fines, and one should never pay these scammers unless ordered to by a judge. You have been conned, complain to your MP.

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

Linda992

Thank you for your reply. Is there anything else i can do before the claim form arrives? i read from an article that i can send a cheque of small amount of money to offer settlement? Would that be a sensible thing to do with scumbags like CMP and Gladstones?
Sorry I'd like to avoid the court if possible.

Redx

all that would do is alert them to the fact they have a fish swimming close to the bait and knocking it about, so they will freeze and wait for you to take hold of the bait, drop yourself in it and set the hook to take you to the cleaners


what you want is irrelevant, its either pay in full or play the game

Linda992

Hi Deep, thank you for your reply.
I was a visitor and my bf was a tenant there. But he has moved out 6 months ago.
It's really upsetting to keep receiving letters from these lot but i feel i should not give in!!!
If i write to MP, shall i write to my local MP or the MP in that area?

The_Deep wrote: »

I've tried to contact the property management company and they refused to help either.

Are you a leaseholder, occupant, tenant, visitor, or a trespasser?

They are not fines, and one should never pay these scammers unless ordered to by a judge. You have been conned, complain to your MP.

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

ShakeItOff

Write to as many MPs as you like! I have written to mine and the one where the PPC that I'm involved with is based. The more annoying I am, the better!

Don't forget to send a subject access request to UK CPM today. There is a Legal Beagles template linked in the NEWBIES post, and their data protection officer's email address will be on UK CPM's privacy policy page. It might also be worth sending one off to the DVLA too, while you're at it.

With 30 days to respond, you will hopefully receive this before you need to submit a defence.

Linda992

ShakeItOff wrote: »

Write to as many MPs as you like! I have written to mine and the one where the PPC that I'm involved with is based. The more annoying I am, the better!

Don't forget to send a subject access request to UK CPM today. There is a Legal Beagles template linked in the NEWBIES post, and their data protection officer's email address will be on UK CPM's privacy policy page. It might also be worth sending one off to the DVLA too, while you're at it.

With 30 days to respond, you will hopefully receive this before you need to submit a defence.

Thank you so much. i'll write to MP as well as DVLA. It's really a shame that CPM is ripping off people again and again.

Coupon-mad

Have you read the NEWBIES thread and done the SAR recommended?

Linda992

Now i have to play the game.

I received the Court Claim recently. Have done the AOS and the following is my defence. Can you give me some advice?

DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxx xxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date on a public road, not on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.

2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

3. After the defendant paid the last parking notice issued on 28 MAY 2018 out of goodwill, more parking notices were sent to the defendant’s home address by post. The claimant is taking advantage of defendant’s goodwill.

4. It is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The parking sign was not lit directly or indirectly nor was the sign retro-reflective. This is not conforming to the British Parking Association Code of Practice, nor the rules that were issued after the outcome of the “ParkingEye V Barry Beavis” case.

6. After further investigation, during the past 12 months the parking sign was removed a few times and now it’s permanently removed. The claimant has no authority over the area the parking area. The claim is invalid.

7. The claimant repeats through a series of communications that the vehicle was ‘DO NOT DISPLAY VALID PARKING PERMIT’ yet provides neither by adequate signage, distinctive markings or later particulars of claim any information where a reasonable person can identify the controlled parking area.

8. The defendant wrote to the claimant on xxxxxx asking for:
a) Full particulars of the parking charges
b) Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management.
c) The full legal identity of the landowner
d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park Management had their authority.
e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum
f) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
g) To provide a copy of the signs that UK Car Park Management can evidence were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.

The claimant has not responded.

9. UK Car Park Management are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the
reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
9.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
9.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
9.3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. – verging on, in my opinion, an attempt to fraud the Defendant in to paying extra.

10.1. The particulars of claim also include a sum of £50, described as "Legal representative's costs". This work is done as part of the Claimant's everyday routine and no "expert services" are involved. The Claimant is put to strict proof, by way of timesheets or otherwise, to show how this cost has been incurred

10.2. Legal services cannot be claimed in the small claims court as per CPR 27.14

11. The Claimant has failed the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so the defendant is not liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

11.1 The Defendant believes that the Claimant has not followed the correct procedures outlined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by identifying who the driver of the vehicle was and therefore the Defendant, as keeper, is not liable for the charge.

11.2 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

12. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

13. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (The Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage which formed a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a license to park fee. None of this applies in this case.

14. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
•

beamerguy

# 10
The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. – verging on, in my opinion, an attempt to fraud the Defendant in to paying extra.

Stating fraud is probably not the best thing to say

Use the words a court understands ... ABUSE OF PROCESS

Help about ABUSE OF PROCESS is available here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Read post #14 from coupon-mad