Gladstones Response

tolukuksy

Hi Guys,
help required!! In January this year a driver received a Letter Before Claim on behalf of UKPS Limited in at the drivers new address for a pcn issued back in 2017. First the driver heard of it, so the driver responded back with a standard letter found on another forum requesting more information about it but not defending it or confirming the keeper was the driver. They have now responded with the text (copied in below)




The driver is disputing it as its the first they have heard of this PCN, correspondence was clearly being sent to an address keeper no longer reside in. The area parked in was not at all marked but they put a second photo showing a sign claiming 'no parking at any time' which was no where near where the driver parked.
Just wondering what the driver should do now. What is their defence? Does the keeper need to respond back to gladstones with their defence? or ask them to send it to court and wait to defend it then? unsure of the next steps and wondering if anyone can help with a response.
Thanks!


Dear



Thank you for your correspondence, our reply to which is set out below.


We believe our Letter before Claim is compliant with the most up to date version of the Pre-Action Protocol (‘the Protocol’) however and without concession, we would be grateful for clarification as to your position with respect to non-compliance with the same.


It is noted that you have not provided an account of your version of events as is required by the Protocol.

Despite the above with a view to expediting matters, please find enclosed evidence our Client may later rely on should the need for proceedings arise. We also enclose a copy of the Annex 1 Information Sheet, the Reply Form and the Standard Financial Statement.


We trust the above and the enclosed clarifies our Client’s position with respect to the outstanding debt. In the event you are still unsatisfied with the above, please find below our responses to your numbered questions below;

• Your details were provided as the registered keeper of vehicle registration ****when a request was made to the DVLA. On the enclosed Notice to Keeper you were provided with the opportunity to nominate a driver. As we are yet to receive any nomination; our Client therefore avers, given your lack of response, that you as the registered keeper of the vehicle were also the driver on the date of the incident.
  
  
• We do not need to disclose this document at this stage given its commercially sensitive information, and refer you to the case of Vehicle Control Services v HMRC, whom established that a contracting party does not need to show they have a right to do something.
  
  
• Our Client has complied with the provisions under POFA 2012 and will rely on Schedule 4.
  
  
• Please see enclosed evidence, a sign can be found in the photographs.
  
  
• Please see enclosed evidence.
  
  
• Please see attached evidence. Prior to our involvement, if the charge had been paid at the time of issuing and/ or within 14 days, the parking charge would have reduced to £60.00. Failing to make the payment within the time frame would make the motorist liable for the full charge of £100, as no payment was forthcoming the case was passed to ourselves and the amount increased to £160.
  
  The £100.00 is the parking charge and the £60.00 being claimed is a charge owed to our Client for their time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of this, as a direct result of your non-payment.
  
  
• Please see attached evidence.
  
  
• The additional £60 claimed by our Client is approved by their accredited trade association as follows;

Browntoa

What does the newbies thread say ?

Have you followed the advice there ?

MonkeyRum

Please edit your post to hide the identity of the driver. Parking companies frequent this forum and can use posts as evidence in court.

The_Deep

our Client therefore avers, given your lack of response, that you as the registered keeper of the vehicle were also the driver on the date of the incident.

Aver is an odd word to use. it has many meanings, from "is of the opinion that" to "knows for a fact". I would ask them to be more precise.

The £60 they have added unlawfully may present them with a problem in court, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

You may also wish to consider raising this with the SRA

http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.pagehttp://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams 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.

tolukuksy

I've search there and haven't seen anything that say weather I should respond back to their information or just be silent and wait till they put a claim in. And if I'm responding do I state my defence or wait till court

Quentin

Everyone is asked to read up on this in the newbies faq thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread


Go there now to get an understanding of the game you are now caught up in and how to deal with this


Post #2 there covers court claims reight through from the LBA to the hearing


Don't do anything till you have spent the necessary time on that post!

beamerguy

The £100.00 is the parking charge and the £60.00 being claimed is a charge owed to our Client for their time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of this, as a direct result of your non-payment.

Please see attached evidence.

The additional £60 claimed by our Client is approved by their accredited trade association as follows;

Gladstones are sending you rubbish, they always do, an incompetent solicitor

The £60 is an added scam charge that is fake and ABUSE OF PROCESS.
Forget about their trade association, that means ZERO.

What matters is POFA2012 and you can see what a judge says about these fake charges here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

In your defence you will highlight this abuse of process by Gladstones and use coupon-mad's statement which refers to Judges decisions to kick out a claim that is Abuse of Process

Gladstones will have signed as a "statement of truth" as mentioned by Jonnersh.

Adding a fake £60 is NOT a statement of truth

Gladstones state .....
Our Client has complied with the provisions under POFA 2012 and will rely on Schedule 4.

But a court judge confirms ....
"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 protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. 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,

Maybe Gladstones could explain their interpretation when Schedule 4 (5) clearly states
"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"