UK Car Park Management/Gladstones Court claim

Fruitcake

I don't see a photo' of the alleged NTD on the car, so there is no proof it was ever handed to the driver or placed on the car whilst stationary, which are the only two ways a NTD can be given.
Did the scammers ever provide a picture of the car with the NTD in place? If not, they cannot prove one was given in accordance with the PoFA.

As for Elliot vs Loake, they are peeing to windward. See what this judge said about the well known  criminal case where specific forensic evidence proved the keeper was the driver.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/skipton-judge-rubbishes-elliot-v-loake.html

Ladybird150

In their WS they provided lots of photographs of the vehicle and one photograph taken at 16:41:36 showed a parking charged notice attached to a vehicle. 

Ladybird150

Umkomaas said:

If a Notice to Driver was issued, they are claiming keeper liability under para 9, when para 8 was the correct one. So, by claiming under para 9, the NtK has been served too late for keeper liability (within 15 days of the parking event). It is a point to argue In your WS, whether a Judge will understand the nuances, it's not guaranteed, so you will need to get a full handle on it. The PPC will argue a clerical error no doubt. 

It's an added hurdle though for them to overcome. 

No Notice to Driver was issued. We believe they have taken a photo and then removed it. They did not send us anything in the post either. The first we heard of the parking charge is when we received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus on 23rd April 2018. I then wrote to both Debt Recovery Plus and UKCPM the same day asking them to clarify what the charge was about as we knew nothing about this. I have copies of these letters with proofs of postage.

UKCPM then answered us on 14th May 2018 confirming that the original parking charge notice was attached to the vehicle and provided a picture. They also attached a a letter which they allegedly sent to us 19th March 2018 at our home address. We believe the letter of 19th March was subsequently produced to cover their tracks.

Ladybird150

Here is a picture of windscreen notice. 

Coupon-mad

Ladybird150 said:

In their WS they provided lots of photographs of the vehicle and one photograph taken at 16:41:36 showed a parking charged notice attached to a vehicle. 

And is that clearly the same vehicle?  I had one once where I argued that a close up of a widscreen wit a PCN on it, was not necessarily an image of the same vehicle because there is no context in the photo.

Is th gap between the photos of the car (BEFORE the PCN on the windscreen pic) only 5 mins? 

If so, have you got 'IPC grace periods' in your WS because 5 mins gives an arriving driver no transaction grace period to read the signs work out where the permits are obtained from, go to the nearest buiding reception, queue up, obtain one after explaining their visit, then return to display it...

This conflicts with itself!

The Claimant alleges that a Notice to Driver was placed on the windscreen of the vehicle, and has provided photographic evidence of same. The Defendant was unaware of any such notice, and strongly suspect that this was an instance of what is known as ‘ghost ticketing’, whereby a parking company operative places a notice on a windscreen, photographs it, and then removes it. The Defendant only became aware of alleged parking charge when a letter was received from an unlicensed ‘Debt collector, Debt Recovery Plus on behalf of the Claimant dated 20th April 2018, two months later. 

The Notice to Keeper, issued by the Claimant, fails to comply with POFA in that it does not contain all of the mandatory wording specified in the legislation. Specifically, they fail on 8(2)(a), no period of parking specified; 8(2)(b), no statement that the parking charge has not been paid in full; and 8(2)(e), no statement that they do not know the name and address of the driver. The failure to issue a compliant Notice has the effect of making the Claimant unable to pursue the keeper, and therefore the Defendant has no liability under POFA. 

The first para says the first letter you had was from DRP, in May.

The second para completely conflicts with that, by saying that a NTK was issued (and that NTK is dated March).

BTW that NTK is substantially compliant with the POFA so I wouldn't pick out odd bits of para 8.  Judges won't be likely to agree, and you only get an hour or so for your hearing. 

The POFA non-compliance is the lack of clear signs = filure to give adequate notice of the parking charge, as required in Sch4.  That is where they fail on POFA.  And lack of a fair transaction/grace period, by using a predatory ticketer who failed to allow time - then appears to have been involved in a ''ghost ticketing'' operation - is what you should emphasise!

Ladybird150

And is that clearly the same vehicle?  I had one once where I argued that a close up of a widscreen wit a PCN on it, was not necessarily an image of the same vehicle because there is no context in the photo.

Yes this is the same vehicle. I shows the number plate. 

Is th gap between the photos of the car (BEFORE the PCN on the windscreen pic) only 5 mins?  

The first picture provided with Claimant's WS was taken at 16:34:25 and the last (showing the windscreen ticket) was taken at 16:41:36 

If so, have you got 'IPC grace periods' in your WS because 5 mins gives an arriving driver no transaction grace period to read the signs work out where the permits are obtained from, go to the nearest buiding reception, queue up, obtain one after explaining their visit, then return to display it...

I have not mentioned any grace period in WS. The car in question was parked on an industrial estate where my husband's business was based. There was no option to get any permits from anyone. 

This conflicts with itself!

The Claimant alleges that a Notice to Driver was placed on the windscreen of the vehicle, and has provided photographic evidence of same. The Defendant was unaware of any such notice, and strongly suspect that this was an instance of what is known as ‘ghost ticketing’, whereby a parking company operative places a notice on a windscreen, photographs it, and then removes it. The Defendant only became aware of alleged parking charge when a letter was received from an unlicensed ‘Debt collector, Debt Recovery Plus on behalf of the Claimant dated 20th April 2018, two months later. 

The Notice to Keeper, issued by the Claimant, fails to comply with POFA in that it does not contain all of the mandatory wording specified in the legislation. Specifically, they fail on 8(2)(a), no period of parking specified; 8(2)(b), no statement that the parking charge has not been paid in full; and 8(2)(e), no statement that they do not know the name and address of the driver. The failure to issue a compliant Notice has the effect of making the Claimant unable to pursue the keeper, and therefore the Defendant has no liability under POFA. 

Defence was produced for me by DC. Reading it now it does seem conflicting. I think he was mentioning here the letter which we were sent a copy of on 14th May when UKCPM produced an alleged letter (Formal Demand) allegedly sent to us in post on 19th March 2018. I did cover this in my WS. 

The first para says the first letter you had was from DRP, in May.

The second para completely conflicts with that, by saying that a NTK was issued (and that NTK is dated March).

I think I am not very clear in my WS at  all but here is the timeline of events to clarify:

1. On 23.04.2018  letter received from Debt Recovery Plus dated 20.4.2018 stating that we owe £160 to UKCPM for parking charge on 13.2.2018. - This is first we heard about this.

2. I wrote to Debt Recovery Plus and UKCPM the same day (23.04.2018) querying the charge as we knew nothing about the ticket and the letter from Debt Recovery Plus was the first correspondence we received.

3. Response letter received from UKCPM dated 14.5.2018 stating that the original parking charge notice was attached to the vehicle windscreen and attaching a copy of a letter they allegedly sent to us on 19.3.2018 which was Formal Demand for Payment. We never received the letter dated 19.3.2018 from the scammers. 
 

W that NTK is substantially compliant with the POFA so I wouldn't pick out odd bits of para 8.  Judges won't be likely to agree, and you only get an hour or so for your hearing.  

The POFA non-compliance is the lack of clear signs = filure to give adequate notice of the parking charge, as required in Sch4.  That is where they fail on POFA.  And lack of a fair transaction/grace period, by using a predatory ticketer who failed to allow time - then appears to have been involved in a ''ghost ticketing'' operation - is what you should emphasise!

Noted. I will amend WS and post again.

Coupon-mad

Is the gap between the photos of the car (BEFORE the PCN on the windscreen pic) only 5 mins?  
The first picture provided with Claimant's WS was taken at 16:34:25 and the last (showing the windscreen ticket) was taken at 16:41:36 

Nope, you need to establish the observation period before the PCN was likely printed, which can only be surmised from their photos without the PCN.    What is that gap?  That's what you need to be pointing out to the judge - no fair grace period.

The car in question was parked on an industrial estate where my husband's business was based. There was no option to get any permits from anyone. 

OK so on what basis did the driver believe they were authorised?  Did some lessee companies on the estate simply not need a permit?  Can he get that by email from a manager, to add as an exhibit?

You said the defence was produced by bargepole so I know it will be a good one. 

Surely I was picking you up on words in your WS, not the defence?  The WS should not repeat the defence all over again, it has no need to because at the start you can simply say 'my defence is repeated and I wil say as follows'

beamerguy

.Assume that statement was from Gladstones ?
They have designed this for you to win ?    "Elliott v Loake".   ???
We know that this was a criminal case and other dodgy legals have tried this wheeze and failed
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5672664/bwlegal-the-list-of-failures-growing/p1
Scroll down to BWLEGAL FAILURES    <<<< one of the other dodgy legals

In their statement, these fools are telling the judge they rely on a criminal case ??  (point 18)
Talk about walking into the spanking trap HA ?   There is no connection to "Elliott v Loake" and your case, are they assuming you are a criminal ?
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5253885/elliott-versus-loake

Have they attempted to explain the fake abuse of process £60 ??

Ladybird150

Coupon-mad said:

Is the gap between the photos of the car (BEFORE the PCN on the windscreen pic) only 5 mins?  
The first picture provided with Claimant's WS was taken at 16:34:25 and the last (showing the windscreen ticket) was taken at 16:41:36 

Nope, you need to establish the observation period before the PCN was likely printed, which can only be surmised from their photos without the PCN.    What is that gap?  That's what you need to be pointing out to the judge - no fair grace period.

Thank you. Is the grace period mentioned in POFA? 

Coupon-mad

Not really, but given that the POFA issue was a lack of 'adequate notice' then it follows that giving a driver notice of a £100 charge MUST give them a fair opportunity to 'take notice' of it before a PCN was issued in 5 mins flat...see what I mean?  One argument leads to the next.