LBC from Gladstones

HottoTrot

Good morning fellow forum buddies

Ten days ago the keeper received a 'roboclaim' LBC from Gladstones acting on behalf of Horizon Parking. The keeper has not entered into any correspondence at any time, with Horizon, DRP, Zenith or Gladstones, no liability has been accepted.

The Keeper is unsure of the best course of action now. Are there sufficient grounds to fight the position. The keeper cannot recall who the driver was on the particular day. A visit to the site has revealed that the entrance sign, contrary to BPA's Appendix B to their Code of Conduct, does not contain the AOS roundel which says must always been shown on the entrance sign. That and the fact that the signs are over 3 metres high with exceptionally small print for the T&Cs and those that are not at 3 metres are on walls at ground level but hidden because they are concealed by parked cars.

The parking charge was issued for outstaying the 'free period'.

Advice on next steps is greatly appreciated. I have photos of all correspondence redacted as necessary but not sure how to post here.

Cheers in advance.

beamerguy

Assume that the LBC has given you 30 days to respond and provided proof of their claim/costs

HottoTrot

Yes all is contained in the letter. Nothing seems to be at fault in that respect. Claim is outlined, initial charge of £70 has become £140 for the 'time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge'

HottoTrot

calling for outstanding amount to be paid in full or they have been instructed to commence legal proceedings. PS. '10 days ago' was exaggerated - keeper must respond in next week to be within the 30 days.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so, as well as following the advice in the stickies/FAQs, 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.

beamerguy

HottoTrot wrote: »

Yes all is contained in the letter. Nothing seems to be at fault in that respect. Claim is outlined, initial charge of £70 has become £140 for the 'time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge'

Sounds like Gladstones, trying to recover money they are not entitled to ?

GLADSTONES ADD ON A FAKE £70 ?
In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, Gladstones, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £70 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. >>>> thanks to bargepole

So, you now rebut their claim with your own proof and request proof of their claim "for the 'time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge"

Here is a clue as you were chased by DRP ....
DRP SAY .... "We offer a ‘no collection, no fee service"
http://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pcn-collection/

Therefore Gladstones are trying to scam you

HottoTrot

Thanks @The Deep. Letters to MPs are all well and good but they don't prevent a visit to the Magistrate. If the driver did stay for longer than the advertised period and there is ANPR evidence to support it then surely the only defence is that the T&Cs were inaccessible or some other technicality like not adhering to the Code of Conduct under which the PPC is supposed to operate - the APOS roundel for example.

@beamerguy yes it is agreed that the costs have been inflated by Gladstones and there is no basis for them - not an issue to dispute and the keeper will rebut. Question is does the keeper have any recourse to fight the initial Parking Charge Notice or should they accept that this and offer the £70 - as unreasonable as that it for allegedly overstaying the free period by less that 90mins?

HottoTrot

Annex B of the BPA Code of Conduct refers to the roundel but can't issue link here as restricted as new user.

beamerguy

HottoTrot wrote: »

@beamerguy yes it is agreed that the costs have been inflated by Gladstones and there is no basis for them - not an issue to dispute and the keeper will rebut. Question is does the keeper have any recourse to fight the initial Parking Charge Notice or should they accept that this and offer the £70 - as unreasonable as that it for allegedly overstaying the free period by less that 90mins?

How long was the overstay and the reason why, were you shopping

The Roundel will not really mean anything

The_Deep

Thanks @The Deep. Letters to MPs are all well and good but they don't prevent a visit to the Magistrate.

There will be no visit to Mags. This is a civil matter, a disputed debt, just like an OTT plumber's bill, and if the putative debtor lodges a claim it will be heard in a Civil Court, aka County Court, where. on the balance of probabilities, a civil judge will decide the matter under contract law .

surely the only defence is that the T&Cs were inaccessible or some other technicality like not adhering to the Code of Conduct under which the PPC is supposed to operate - the APOS roundel for example.

As I have already said, nine out of ten of these claims are a scam, judges know this only too well.

Indeed, plus signage, contract, landowner authority, accreditation, timeliness, compliance with POFA, planning permission, advertising permission, double claiming, etc., etc., etc. They have many hurdles to clear, if they fail one they lose.

You seem to be under the impression that this unregulated (as yet) industry is legitimate, it is not.

HottoTrot

Thanks @The Deep - the keeper is not under any impression it is regulated but a CCJ is not something they are looking to get either. If the keeper were inclined to think it was a regulated and legitimate charge then they would have paid the initial charge and those of the several others that are pending for various other PPC mongrels that have chased over the years. This is the only one that the keeper has received an LBC for to date.