County Court Claim - Private PCN from UK CPM

Amis95

Hi Guys,
quick question, as you may have seen the NTK in the link to my above post, do you think it's an ANPR ticket?
I know UK CPM come around with a camera attached on top of their car and take pictures and leave. if this is not a ANPR, I can argue that a ntk was issued that went missing and they should have waiting 28 days before sending the NTK as stated by POFA 8 (5)

What do you think?

Amis95

Hi Guys, while I wait for you to reply to my above post, I thought I will post the updated WS:

In the County Court at
Mayors and City of London Court

Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

Witness statement of Mr XXXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX

1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit AM01, Exhibit AM02 and so on.

2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

3. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

4. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg – XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this Claimant as to who parked the vehicle (if it was parked) or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the alleged charge, the car was used by several family and friends.

5. According to the Notice to Keeper, the alleged charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on 11.06.2018 at 19;05 on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) letter to me on 14.06.2018 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the Notice to Keeper is attached as Exhibit AM__.

6. As the Claimant is a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), they are required to subscribe to the Approval Operator Scheme (AOS) and adhere to this Code of Practice which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The Claimant has failed to comply with the IPC Code of Practice (See Exhibit AM__) as follows:

7. The Notice to Keeper says that PCN was issued to the vehicle because ‘it was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at 93-101 Greenfield Road that we are authorised to manage on the 11th June 2018 at 19:05. The terms and the conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage installed within the car park. By parking within this car park you are bound to these terms and conditions and liable to pay a charge if you breach these terms and conditions.’ The Claimant is put to strict proof that the car was parked and the terms were offered to the driver.





8. Claimant’s claim that the car is parked, yet the two pictures provided in the Notice to Keeper shows picture one was taken at 19:05:40 and second at 19:05:43 which cannot prove that whether the car was parked, giving way or turning around. This also goes against the IPC Code of Practice Part B 15.1 which states ‘Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.’

9. The Claimant never showed the alleged signage/contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs). As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for.

10. The Claimant failed to comply IPC Code of Practice Part B 2.2 which states ‘Signs must conform to the requirements as set out in a schedule 1 to the Code’ (PART E Schedule 1 – Signage).

11. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence.

12. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the Notice to Keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was stationed in an area where there are no marked bays to prove that the car was parked and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures.

13. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs during the day let alone see them at the night as there is no adequate light on that road or beside the signage. (See Exhibit AM__)

14. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. (See Exhibit AM__)

15. Around forty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road rather than forward), that is affixed around 12 foot high off the ground which can barely be noticeable or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. (See Exhibit AM__)

16. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage was noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but it was not possible to get within 10 feet of the sign due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier and at this distance the tiny, illegible whatever terms could not be read. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. (See Exhibit AM__)

17. It is denied that the signs used by this Claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case 2015.

18. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges". (See Exhibit AM__)

19. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

20. The Claimant is yet to provide evidence of relevant planning permission from the local authority to put up signage in the car park.

21. If the Claimant is using The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 12) to create a keeper liability, POFA 12 Schedule 4, (See Exhibit AM__) at Section 4(5) states that ‘The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper’ in this case £100. The purported added 'costs' for which no calculation or explanation is given are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR) (See Exhibit AM__), and the Consumer Rights Act ('the CRA') 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. (See Exhibit AM__)

22. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'recovery costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

23. Alleging that the letters the parking firm sent have caused an additional loss, is simply untrue. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is/was on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

24. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

24.1. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has finally been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.

The Beavis case is against this Claim
25. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for the recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters

25.1. This charge is unconscionable and devoid of any 'legitimate interest', given the facts. To quote from the decision in the Beavis case at Para [108]: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay £85''. Ad at [199]: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of £85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests.''

25.2. In the Beavis case, it was said at para [205]: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''

25.3. At para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

25.4. At para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.'' and at para 198: ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

The POFA 12 and the Accredited Trade Association (ATA) Code of Practice (See Exhibit AM__) are against this Claim
26. POFA 12, Schedule 4 at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the Claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

The CRA is against this claim
27. Further, the purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, vague and in breach of the CRA 2015 Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'. This Claimant has arbitrarily added an extra 60% of the parking charge in a disingenuous double recovery attempt that has already been exposed and routinely disallowed by many Courts in England and Wales. It is atrocious that this has been allowed to continue unabated for so many years, considering the number of victims receiving this Claimant's exaggerated Letter before Claim, or the claim form, who then either pay an inflated amount or suffer a default judgment for a sum that could not otherwise be recovered. It is only those who defend, who draw individual cases to the attention of the courts one by one, but at last in 2019, some areas noticed the pattern and have moved to stop this abuse of process at source.

27.1. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) v Davies) (See Exhibit AM__) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

27.2. That decision in Wales was contested in a N244 application by VCS, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30 Oct 2019. District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on, and despite parking firms continuing to include it in their Particulars, most advocates have now stopped pushing for it at hearings. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances, and further, he ordered that the Claimant must now produce a statement of how they pleaded claims prior to Beavis, and subsequently.

27.3. In Claim numbers, F0DP806M and F0DP201T (See Exhibit AM__, a court report) - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.

27.3.1. Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included British Parking Association (BPA) members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' robo-claim model, and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the POFA 12, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in the Beavis case. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

27.3.2. BW Legal made an application objecting to two 'test' cases that had been struck out by District Judge Taylor against a parking firm for trying to claim for £160 instead of £100 parking charge. This has been repeated conduct in recent years, on the back of the Beavis case, where parking firms have almost unanimously contrived to add £60, or more, on top of the 'parking charge'. Members of both ATAs who have influence on their self-serving 'Trade Bodies' have even voted to have this imaginary 'damages/debt collection' sum added to their respective two Codes of Practice, to create a veil of legitimacy, no doubt to allow their members to confuse consumers and to enable them to continue to 'get away with it' in several court areas which are still allowing this double recovery.

27.3.3. That N244 application to try to protect the cartel-like position of some of the 'bigger player' parking firms, was placed before the area Circuit Judge and a hearing was held on 11th November 2019, with other parking charge cases in that circuit remaining struck out or stayed, pending the outcome. The Defendants successfully argued on points including a citation of the CRA 2015 and the duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that falls upon the courts, whether a consumer raises the issue or not). All three points below were robustly upheld by District Judge Grand, sitting at the Southampton Court, who agreed that:
(a) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was in breach of POFA 12, due to paras 4(5) and 4(6).
(b) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge (howsoever argued or constructed) was unconscionable, due to the Beavis case paras 98, 193, 198 and 287.
(c) The Claimant knew or should have known, that £160 charge where the additional 'recovery' sum was in small print, hidden, or in the cases before him, not there at all, is void for uncertainty and in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14.

27.3.4. At the hearing, the Judge refused their request to appeal. It was successfully argued that the parking firm's consumer notice stood in breach of the CRA 2015, Schedule 2 (the 'grey list' of terms that may be unfair) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14. Using the statutory duty upon the Courts to consider the test of fairness and properly apply schedule 2 of the CRA 2015 it was irrelevant whether or not the consumers' defences had raised it before, which they had not. The same issues apply to this claim.

27.3.5. A transcript will be publicly available shortly. In his summing up, it was noted that District Judge Grand stated: ''When I come to consider whether the striking out of the whole claim is appropriate, that the inclusion of the £60 charge means that the whole claim is tainted by it, the Claimant should well know that it is not entitled to the £60. The very fact that they bring a claim in these circumstances seems to me that it is an abuse of process of the court, and in saying that, I observe that with any claim that can be brought before the court that if a party doesn't put in a defence to the claim, default judgments are entered. So, the Claimant, in bringing the claims is, in other cases, aware that if the defendant doesn’t submit a defence, the Claimant is going to get a judgment of a knowingly inflated amount. So I conclude by saying that I dismiss the application to set aside Judge Taylor’s ruling.''

27.4. Consumer notices - such as car park signs - are not excused by the CRA 'core exemption'. The Completion & Marketing Authority (CMA) (See Exhibit AM__) Official Government Guidance to the CRA says: ''2.43 In addition, terms defining the main subject matter and setting the price can only benefit from the main exemption from the fairness test ('the core exemption') if they are transparent (and prominent) – see part 3 of the guidance.'' and at 3.2 ''The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine 'core' contractual issues).'' The parking industry is the exception to this rule because they have no consumer 'customers' yet are consumer-facing. Their intention is very clearly in many cases (including this case) for a consumer not to see the onerous terms hidden in their notices and it is averred that no regard is paid to consumer law.

27.5. The definition of a consumer notice is given at 1.19 and the test of fairness is expanded at 1.20: ''A consumer notice is defined broadly in the Act as a notice that relates to rights or obligations between a trader and a consumer, or a notice which appears to exclude or restrict a trader’s liability to a consumer. It includes an announcement or other communication, whether or not in writing, as long as it is reasonable to assume that it is intended to be seen or heard by a consumer. Consumer notices are often used, for instance, in public places such as shops or car parks as well as online and in documentation that is otherwise contractual in nature. [...] Consumer notices are, therefore, subject to control for fairness under the Act even where it could be argued that they do not form part of the contract as a matter of law. Part 2 of the Act covers consumer notices as well as terms, ensuring that, in a broad sense any wording directed by traders to consumers which has an effect comparable to that of a potentially unfair contract term is open to challenge in the same way as such a term. There is no need for technical legal arguments about whether a contract exists and whether, if it does, the wording under consideration forms part of it.''

Amis95

28. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the Isle Of White (IOW), Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out another parking ticket claim. The Judge mentioned the POFA 12 and the Beavis case, and determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' Further, in issuing his Order without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the CRA 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.

29. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

30. The Claimant has also failed to respond to my subject access request on 25.10.2019 (See Exhibit AM__) and to a second subject to access request sent on 10/12/2019 (See Exhibit AM__).

31. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading, harassing and indeed untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made.

32. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private land is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA 12 and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

33. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signature: _______
Date: ______

Amis95

Hi guys, not sure why the admin blocked my IP address, so I am a bit scared as it's nearing the deadline. I am looking to go over to the court on Friday to hand deliver the WS bundle. as the deadline is 22nd doing think it's ok to post first class to Gladys?

by the way, here's a list of evidence that I included as Exhibits but I need your advice on if you think I need them all:

list of evidence:
• NTK
• IPC code of practice
• Paragraph 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18 pictures of signage
• Parking eye vs Beavis case 2015 – advised as no need to exhibit it as evidence
• POFA 12 Schedule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules 1998 ? - I couldn’t find it apart from the 114 updates
• CRA schedule 2 grey area
• ATA code of practice
• Case number FTQZ4W28 (I have the two judgement shared in #14 of the abuse of process thread
• Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - #79 of this thread. Court report written by Coupon-mad https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6006850/bw-legal-portswood-car-park-southampton&page=4#topofpage
• The Completion & Marketing Authority
• Can't find the evidence of paragraph 28 of Judge Joseph’s struck out
• my SAR sent evidence

Coupon-mad

I am looking to go over to the court on Friday to hand deliver the WS bundle.

Check they are open first! Some courts might not be open or have a half day.

You do not need these, so save your ink:

NTK

Parking eye vs Beavis case 2015

ATA code of practice

Civil Procedure Rules 1998

my SAR sent evidence

The Completion & Marketing Authority

You mean a couple of quotes from the Competition and Markets Authority guidance on the CRA.

Can't find the evidence of paragraph 28 of Judge Joseph’s struck out

You can send a pm to the two people who reported that they have these judgments from Warwick and ask one of them to post an image of the judgment on their thread for us all to use please (and if they are wiring till they are safely past 21 days, ask them if they would just let you have a copy as you need it a little earlier).

Search the forum for Warwick Joseph and you will find two people have this Order.

Umkomaas

Hi guys, not sure why the admin blocked my IP address

Because you're copying and pasting from MSWord perhaps?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5706338/please-dont-copy-and-paste-from-word-outlook

Amis95

@Coupon-mad, thank you so much as ever!!!! I will check the court opening and if not I will do it tomorrow but I will post to Gladys first class on Friday.

Yes, I meant Competition and Markets Authority, sorry was a spelling error, do you recommend I add it?

I will ask for the evidence on Warwick Joseph.

quick question (repeating #63), can I add a paragraph that says they breached POFA 8 (5)?:
As this is not a ANPR ticket (do you agree), the Claimant has breached POFA 12 Schedule 4, by issuing the Notice to Keeper only three days after the alleged incident which goes against Paragraph 8 (5) of POFA which states
'The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is 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.' The NTK should have been issued after the 28 days period given to the Notice to Driver.

What do you think? NTK can be found here - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/l32erokjhujzs78/AACsmIYrzqhiDUXKXWI9ceYpa?dl=0

@Umkomaas - yes, you are right, admin jist confirmed that is exactly why i got blocked.

nosferatu1001

It does not have to use ANPR, ever, for them to only issue a NtK and therefore have to get it sent quickly to meet para 9.

Coupon-mad

Yes, I meant Competition and Markets Authority, sorry was a spelling error, do you recommend I add it?

You can include the couple of things I quoted from the guidance in post #14 of the Abuse of process thread, and just call that document the CMA Guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015. No need for the full name of the quango.

Amis95

Thank you all, I will start printing at the end of the day and get the bundle ready. the court is open tomorrow so will hand-deliver it tomorrow and send first class to Gladys.