UK CPM Gladstones Claim

penleg

Hi all,

I have received a Claim Form from Gladstones and would like some advice on my Defence please. I have read all the forums here and think you all do an amazing job in supporting regular, worried people fight back against unfair charges. I understand that you are all busy people with your own worries and real life so I am aiming to be as non needy as possible!

Summary of events
22 Nov 2017: Another person who is insured on the Vehicle was given a NTD having exceeded the allocated time of ticket. Cue immense frustration but recognition that they were late back due to child tantrum. Decide to pay fine as (IRONY ALERT) we didn't want to still be dealing with it years later.
04 Dec 17: Attempt to pay NTD PCN online and over phone. Unable to do so, PCN not valid, PCN had been cancelled by then (Day 12).
07 Dec 17: I get letter regarding PCN (Day 15), attempt to pay using the NTD code, unable to do so.
05 Jan 2018: Another letter, saying that PCN is overdue. Realise at this point that they are referring to a NTK PCN, issued on 7/12/19 for the same offence. We contact UK CPM refusing to pay, as we feel we tried to pay initial PCN but were unable to as it was cancelled. If that was their error in cancelling it and they've tried to re-issue it, I'm not playing (or paying).
Feb 18: Another letter, including one for DRP. Not knowing the correct form, we contact them to say we are disputing the case. I find this forum and after receiving another letter from UK CPM, I send a snot-o-gram with some guidance from NEWBIES thread. That letter is not acknowledged or replied to.
Mar - Sep 18: We receive love letters from DRP.
Oct 18: LBC received from Gladstone. I write back asking for the information requested in Feb.
Mar 2019: They reply, partially. I've decided to contact them to offer settlement of the initial fine, as we have a lot of disruption on the horizon and (IRONY ALERT) I feel going to court might be a unnecessary distraction. However, there is a family bereavement and it falls off my radar.
09 May 19: Arrive home from funeral to find Claim letter waiting (issued 07/05/19).
12 May 19: AOS completed.

Having decided that actually I do want my day in court and I do want to nail them to the wall, I have fire back in my belly. Please find below my first draft of the Defence, it is deliberately concise, I'm happy to amend as per your advice.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

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 Defendant was the Keeper of the vehicle at the time of incident, not the Driver. A Notice to Driver was placed on the vehicle (22/11/17). When the Driver attempted to pay via phone and online on 4/12/17 it had been cancelled. Subsequently, a Notice to Keeper was sent to the Defendant (issued 7/12/17).

3. The Particulars of the Claim state that the Driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue. This was attempted on Day 12, however, the NTD PCN had been cancelled by this time so this could not occur. The Claimant has made aware that the Defendant was not the Driver and yet has continued to harass the Defendant.

4. It is denied that the Claimant had Reasonable Grounds to obtain the Defendant’s data from the DVLA. Furthermore, the Claimant unlawfully passed the Defendants personal data to a third party, Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, in convention of Data Protection Act 1998 Part II Section 10 Paragraph 1 (b).

5. It is denied that the Claimant has the ability to issue multiple PCNs for the same event. The Claimant stated that the NTD had been cancelled due to it being a duplicate ticket’. The Defendant disputes that a PCN issued on the 7/12/17 could be a duplicate of a PCN issued on the 22/11/17 and cancelled by the 4/12/17.

6. The Claimant has not performed their actions in line with the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012. They failed to acknowledge in the NTK that a NTD had been issued in breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2)( c). They failed to issue the NTK at the appropriate timescale, in breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(4).

7. When the Defendant asked the Claimant for further details of the offence in letters dated 14/2/18 and 31/10/18, the Claimant failed to provide any information until the 25/03/19, and only provided partial responses.

8. POFA Section 4 Paragraph 5 states that the maximum sum that can be claimed is the charge stated on the NTK, in this case £100. The Defendant disputes therefore, the Claimant’s claim of £252.48.

9. In Summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s case is without merit and has no prospect of success. The Court is invited, therefore, to strike out the claim of its own initiative.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

KeithP

penleg wrote: »

09 May 19: Arrive home from funeral to find Claim letter waiting (issued 07/05/19).
12 May 19: AOS completed.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's almost four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Castle

penleg wrote: »

2. The facts are that the Defendant was the Keeper of the vehicle at the time of incident, not the Driver. A Notice to Driver was placed on the vehicle (22/11/17). When the Driver attempted to pay via phone and online on 4/12/17 it had been cancelled. Subsequently, a Notice to Keeper was sent to the Defendant (issued 7/12/17).

Well they are too late to comply with paragraph 9 of POFA and too early for paragraphs 7 & 8.

Day 14 would have been 6th December 2017 which would require an issue date of 4th December or earlier if no NTD was issued.

penleg

@KeithP Thanks - I had seen this list on other posts and was hoping you might help here, its a fantastic aide memorie.

@Castle Thanks - my reading of POFA is that their timelines are off. Are the correct sections cited in point 6 or do I need to amend this?

Coupon-mad

Unlike UKCPM to issue a windscreen PCN then a postal one prematurely.

They must have had an over-zealous chap on foot, forgetting that ANPR was there (or was there no ANPR?).

This is not just about not meeting POFA timelines (after all, they don't HAVE to use the POFA). It can be argued that they got your data fraudulently, as it was premature, and without reasonable cause, and against the KADOE.

I suggest (same time as defending it) submit an online 'concern about how a company has handled your data' complaint to the ICO, as the PPC got your data about 3 weeks too soon from the DVLA and were barred from getting it earlier due to the NTD they issued (cancelling it doesn't make it a nullity, the driver still had it served, thus the DVLA data was not in the gift of UKCPM to apply for until day 29).

You will have to explain this to the ICO properly, using the POFA to explain it properly, and that there is NO lawful excuse for them to seek this data prematurely, not even if they bleat that the PCN was cancelled and/or if they bleat that the NTK was ''non-POFA''. Doesn't matter, a PPC still cannot get DVLA data until day 29 at the earliest, where ANY NTD was served. Tell the ICO clearly, that this is a serious breach of the DVLA KADOE rules, due to UKCPM having no 'reasonable cause' to request the keeper's name and address on the date they did.

Also complain to the DVLA about it.

And (you might think this is pointless, but we believe UKCPM are on sanctions at the moment!) also report them to the IPC for a breach of the CoP and KADOE, for the same reasons explained above.

In your defence as well, add to this point #2 to tell the Judge that the Claimant obtained your DVLA data prematurely, and against the GDPR and you have reported them to the ICO for this serious breach of the DVLA KADOE rules and having no 'reasonable cause' to request the keeper's name and address on the date they did:

2. The facts are that the Defendant was the Keeper of the vehicle at the time of incident, not the Driver. A Notice to Driver was placed on the vehicle (22/11/17). When the Driver attempted to pay via phone and online on 4/12/17 it had been cancelled. Subsequently, a Notice to Keeper was sent to the Defendant (issued 7/12/17).

You also need some 'safety net' usual defence points:

- unclear signs at this location, with the parking charge in small lettering

- no evidence of landowner authority, nor of any standing to sue in their own name.

penleg

@Coupon-mad. Thanks, great suggestions. I would be delighted to cause UK CPM far more hassle than me. I have drafted a letter of complaint to send to the ICO, DVLA and IPC (will slightly tweak it for each audience but the gist will be basically the same). Is this suitable?

Dear Sir/Ma’am,

I am writing to you to make a complaint about the illegal conduct of UK Car Park Management (CPM) Ltd.

They issued me a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) Notice to Driver (NTD) for an event that occurred on the 22nd November 2017. When I attempted to pay this PCN, it had been cancelled. On the 7th December 2017, 15 days after the event, they issued a Notice to Keeper (NTK) using data that they had obtained illegally from the DVLA.

They have acted in contravention of the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012, the Keeper of Vehicle at the date of event (KADOE) contract, and their own British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP).

UK CPM did not meet the requirements clearly laid out in the POFA 2012. By issuing a NTD, they were unable to issue a NTK until the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given (Section 8, paragraph 5). This is in breach of third condition as stated in Section 11, 1(b). Furthermore, UK CPM failed to observe the requirement as stated in Section 8, 2(c) by stating that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given.

They have illegally obtained my data using a wilful misrepresentation of the KADOE, breaching section B2.1 as they were lacking Reasonable Ground to obtain my personal data (by not following the directions laid down by POFA above). In contravention of section B2.3, they must have submitted false information in manner that would be fraudulent, breaching section F2.1. They failed to report this illegal and immoral behaviour in breach of section D10.1 and F2.2. Nor do I believe they have acted in a way that meets the requirements of section G2.1 given the adverse media attention that Private Parking Companies (PPCs) such as UK CPM have drawn in the media and in Parliament.

They have failed to follow the standards required of them in the BPA CoP, namely those stated in Section 2.4 regarding their obligation to follow legal guidance including POFA 2012 and DVLA guidelines and Section 2.6 you will keep to the law and act in a professional, responsible and diligent way.

There is no lawful excuse for them to obtain my data prematurely. This is a serious breach of the DVLA KADOE rule due to UK CPM having no Reasonable Cause to to request the keepers name and address when they did.

I feel obliged to draw their behaviour to your attention as I believe that they have not met the standards expected of them and have diminished the reputation of PPCs and those associated with them.

Yours sincerely


XXXXXX

penleg

Version 2 of Defence below, section 3 & 7 amended as recommended, section 8 added re: signage. Incidentally, I also sent a SAR to them this evening, mainly as an irritation although it might return something interesting.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NO: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

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 Defendant was the Keeper of the vehicle at the time of incident, not the Driver. A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) Notice to Driver (NTD) was placed on the vehicle (22/11/17). When the Driver attempted to pay via phone and online on 4/12/17 it had been cancelled. Subsequently, a Notice to Keeper (NTK) was sent to the Defendant (issued 7/12/17). The Claimant obtained the Defendants details prematurely, and against General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and the Defendant has reported the Claimant to the Information Commissioner’s Office for this Serious Breach of the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) Keeper of vehicle at the date of event (KADOE) rules and having no Reasonable Grounds to request the Defendants name and address on the day they did.

3. The Particulars of the Claim state that the Driver of the Vehicle agreed to pay the PCN within 28 days of issue. This was attempted on Day 12, however, the NTD PCN had been cancelled by this time so this could not occur. The Claimant has made aware that the Defendant was not the Driver and yet has continued to harass the Defendant.

4. It is denied that the Claimant had Reasonable Grounds to obtain the Defendant’s data from the DVLA. Furthermore, the Claimant unlawfully passed the Defendants personal data to a third party, Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, in convention of Data Protection Act 1998 Part II Section 10 Paragraph 1 (b).

5. It is denied that the Claimant has the ability to issue multiple PCNs for the same event. The Claimant stated that the NTD had been cancelled due to it being a duplicate ticket’. The Defendant disputes that a PCN issued on the 7/12/17 could be a duplicate of a PCN issued on the 22/11/17 and cancelled by the 4/12/17.

6. The Claimant has not performed their actions in line with the Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) 2012. They failed to acknowledge in the NTK that a NTD had been issued in breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 8(2)( c). They failed to issue the NTK at the appropriate timescale, in breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 8, Section 5 (the 28 day period following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the NTD was given).

7. When the Defendant asked the Claimant for further details of the offence in letters dated 14/2/18 and 31/10/18, the Claimant failed to provide any information until the 25/03/19, and only provided partial responses. The Claimant refused to provide any evidence of a contract between itself and the landowner, stating that only if a court order specifies this request then they will comply. The Defendant therefore has no evidence of the landowner authority or standing to sue in their name and requests proof from the Claimant that is has sufficient proprietary interest in the land or necessary authorization from the landowner to issue PCNs or to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. At the location at question, the sign posting is small and difficult to read with the parking charge in small lettering and the terms and conditions written in a font and size which exceedingly minuscule. It is therefore denied that the Claimants signage sets out the terms of a ‘Contract’ in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

9. POFA Section 4 Paragraph 5 states that the maximum sum that can be claimed is the charge stated on the NTK, in this case £100. The Defendant disputes therefore, the Claimant’s claim of £252.48.

10. In Summary, it is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s case is without merit and has no prospect of success. The Court is invited, therefore, to strike out the claim of its own initiative.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

KeithP

They issued me a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)...

Check again.

Did they perhaps issue a Parking Charge Notice?

This sort of detail is important.

Coupon-mad

Don't call it an 'offence' in #7 either. It's not. Call it a 'parking event'.

Word missed out here:

The Claimant has been made aware that the Defendant was not the Driver and yet has continued to harass the Defendant.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams and will fail in court so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

penleg

@KeithP Thanks - it was indeed a Parking Charge Notice.

@Coupon-mad Thanks for the edits.

@The Deep Will do, I'll complain to everyone I can!