Gladstones Letter Before Claim

dgs172

Hi I'm new to this so really hoping someone can help. I've just received a letter before claim from Gladstones solicitors, so have read through the newbies sticky and am just about to send a SAR to UKCPM who issued me with the ticket. The sticky says I should also reply to the letter from Gladstones but not quite sure what to put in this, and what my next steps should be?

I received a ticket from UKCPM 8 months ago. I am an Osteopath and was called to do an emergency home visit with a patient who was unable to move due to severe back pain. I was advised by them to park in the visitor bay of the residential car park, and wrote a sign in my window saying I was called to an emergency appointment at flat 4, fully intending to grab a pass from them to put in the window as soon as possible. The appointment was for 10.30am, and after going up two flights of stairs and waiting for them to struggle to open the door for me, I then had to ask relevent questions to prevent the possibility of a medical emergency due to the fact that if there is nerve damage this will carry the possibility of permanent paralysis and incontinence. I went back to put a pass on my car at 10.50am only to discover I had already had a ticket on my car with the time of 10.47am, only 17 minutes after I arrived. Given the circumstances it would have been impossible for me to make it down in that time, and the fact that I'd parked in a visitor bay which you could hardly make out, was really frustrating. I was so annoyed by this I ignored the subsequent letter which after reading up I now realise was not the best thing to do.

I'm really hoping someone can help me with what I should do next as I've almost reached the point of giving up and just paying the £160 :(:(

Thanks in advance

Redx

Email gladrags and tell them to place the matter on hold whilst you contact their client for further information, plus you are seeking debt management advice

They will refuse this request

Doing the SAR asap is correct

I assume that the LoC gave you 30 days plus included financial forms ? (Do not fill these in)

If yes, prepare for a court claim by reading other court claim threads on here plus reading and digesting post 2 of the newbies faq sticky thread

Then start drafting your defence in Word, so it's ready for critique and advice

Ie get in front of this whilst you have time

The_Deep

Did you not appeal?

You owe them nothing unless a County Court Judge says so. Given the circumstance you describe I would venture that this would be most unlikely, indee3d, I would predict that they would get a bloody nose as, if this had been issued by a local authority it would probably be cancelled, read MC2 here.

https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/car_parks_and_parking/penalty_charges/how_to_appeal_against_a_pcn/mitigating_circumstances.aspx

If they are daft enough to persist, if you win consider asking for unreasonable behaviour costs under CPR27.14(2)(g) or, if you can think of a reason, lodging a counter cliam.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so also consider complaining 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.

dgs172

Thank you so much for the quick replies. Yes letter says 30 days so I shall email gladstones and ask for SAR from UKCPM.
I didn't appeal no but I shall contact my MP as suggested thanks, and will start writing a defence.

Thanks you again for the help it's much appreciated

beamerguy

AND ...... Gladstones has added a fake £60 and you do not owe £160

The courts have said that this is ABUSE OF PROCESS and dismissed such scam claims

READ THIS .... AND DO NOT PAY GLADSTONES
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

dgs172

Ok so I emailed UKCPM for SAR, and Gladstones requesting the matter be put on hold. I have since been looking through lot's of letters on here, and have adapted what looks like a fairly standard template. I wasn't sure whether it was best to do it like this or just to keep it short and succinct, but would really appreciate any feedback in this. I've copied and pasted what I adapted here. Thanks again

Defence Statement
County Court

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD

Preliminary

1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the Creditor, within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

2. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
3.2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
3.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states parking charges which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their roboclaim particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.

3.4.2. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3-7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.
Background

I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:

4. The defendent was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The vehicle has since been sold. This vehicle was routinely used by more than one individual. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver’s alleged breach of contract when parking at ‘Friends Courts’ on 12th December 2018. There is no ‘Friends Courts’ in this area and the defendant has photographic evidence this is not where the ticket was issued.

5. The defendant is a local Osteopath who was called out to an emergency home visit to a patient unable to move due to severe back pain on the day of the incident. The appointment time was 10.30 and was advised to park in a visitor bay of the residential car park which was unmarked. A note was put in the window which was clearly shown on the photos, displaying the reason for visiting flat 4. After walking round the corner to the flats and up two flights of stairs, the defendant then had to wait for several minutes for the patient to struggle to open the door. It was then imperative to ask the relevant questions and quickly examine due to the possibility of permanent paralysis and incontinence due to nerve damage, and potentially life threatening causes. The defendant has medical notes to back this up and evidence of said timings and a witness from flat 4. The defendant returned to the car at 10.50am to notice the parking ticket. On the letter from UKCPM dated 15th January 2019 this shows the first photo taken at 10.35am, and the ticket issued at 10.45am. Given the circumstances this would be impossible to obtain a pass to display in the car in the given time.

6. The defendant has visited the said car park as a result of this claim. It was noticed that there is no signage at the entrances to the site from the main road and within the car park itself the signage is hidden beneath the overhanging bushes.

7. Any signage present is simply unreadable whilst driving. In addition it is placed in locations where it is not obvious to the driver i.e. blind spots from the drivers line of sight, high up on posts. Therefore the signage on this site is inadequate to form any contract with the motorist.


8. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £60 solicitor costs.
•The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
•Notwithstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
•The Claimant described the charge of £60.00 "legal representative costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.


9. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

10. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says; If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the creditor within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

11. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to £160.00. The defendant submits that the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their robo-claim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. Further, Gladstones Solicitors Limited appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.

12. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). UK Car Park Management Ltd do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

13.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
13.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
13.2.1. There was a relevant obligation either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
13.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

13.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

14. The defendant wrote to the claimant on 10th August 2019 asking for:
a) Full particulars of the parking charges
b) Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management Ltd
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 Ltd had their authority.
e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide justification of this sum.
The claimant has not responded with any of the above information.
As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors who also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.

15. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ;parking charge has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
15.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
15.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
15.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

17. I would like the Court to take note that the defendant was then aggressively harassed by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite not being liable for these made up costs.

18. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

19. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

20. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

21. In view of all the foregoing the court is invited to strike the matter out of its own motion. The claimant is put to strict proof of the assertions they have made or may make in their fuller claim.


I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection

Le_Kirk

The defence should be written in the Third Person, you have some instances of using "I". A lot of what you say should be saved for the witness statement stage, defences should be legal/technical points. It is not a defence statement, merely defence. Did you check out the concise defences posted by Bargepole (and others) in the NEBWIE stick post # 2?

NeilCr

Are you still in touch with the patient?.

Might be worth asking them if they know who the freeholder is and trying to get a landowner cancellation.

dgs172

Thanks for the advice I shall check out some more of the concise defences from bargepole. I take it this part should just be the legal points then and save the rest for the witness statement?

I can contact the patient so I'll send them a message tomorrow and find out who the freeholder is. Fingers crossed they might be able to help as well.

Thanks for all the comments

dgs172

So quick update, I emailed requesting SAR, in which they replied saying I needed to complete their forms so did this and sent a letter which they claimed not to have received.
Told me I then had to complete more forms and email them across. Refused to accept these and said I had to complete more forms which I did and sent across. Now they're saying I need to send a copy of my driving licence. Should I carry on playing their little games and send this across?

Thanks in advance to everyone who's been so helpful so far.

David

Coupon-mad

No, the ICO has said you do not have to give excessive data - search the forum for driving licence. We discussed this the other day!