Gladstones LBC , CPM PCN given whilst working

BS_Newbie

OK email gone off with letter attached as PDF and the full text of the Jopson v Homeguard attached in PDF format

Few changes but this is the one that's gone as from the RK

To whom it may concern.

Please find attached a letter in response to recent communication received from your office.

A full copy of the text of the letter is included here also :-

Gladstones Solicitors Ltd RK HOME ADDRESS
The Terrace
High Leigh Park Golf Club
Warrington Road
Knutsford
Cheshire
WA16 6AA


Wednesday 23rd October 2019
To Whom it may concern

REF xxx – PCN xxx

I write as the registered keeper of vehicle with vehicle reg xxxx

Following receipt of your recent letter before claim dated 10/10/2019 I write to confirm that legal and debt advice is being sought and appointments with Citizens Advice Bureau are going to be made and therefore I would be grateful if you can confirm that a 30 day hold will be put on this matter to give time to seek relevant advice.

Your letter states that if it is believed that there is a valid reason for non-payment then a reply pursuant to Para 4 of the PAP under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 is able to be made. This letter is provided to confirm the valid reasons below for non-payment under Para 4 of the above CP rules.

1) The £60 your client has added for 'indemnity or nominal costs/loss' is now viewed in the courts as an abuse of process and many cases have been ruled against by judges for this exact reason. The Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which have 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. A small amount of examples of dismissed cases are provided below, however many more examples will be provided to the court if necessary.
4th September 2019
VCS CASE STRUCK OUT FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS
27th September 2019
BWLegal claim struck out with the judge saying ....
"this court now systematically strikes out claims for those costs"
Southampton Court
Judge Giddins
claim numbers: F4DP5264 & F4DP5279
The Supreme court stated that ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...''

POFA2012 says clearly – “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”.

Your client is not entitled to recover this £60 sum and this will be vigorously contested in the event of a claim being served for any sum over and above the 'parking charge'. Full costs on the indemnity basis will be sought when the case is won.

2) As has already been explained to your client, the driver of the vehicle was attending to the lawful business of delivering food to a local resident and as detailed in the attached Jopson v Homeguard it confirms very clearly that your client has no cause of action because Jopson was about unloading in a residential site which is exactly what the driver was doing at the time the PCN was given.

I encourage you to read the text of this case fully.

3) The signage at the site forbids parking and therefore there is no offer to park and therefore no contract is possible and as such only the landowner has the lawful right to make a claim. The following cases will be used as evidence in court if your client refuses to cancel the PCN and seeks to make a claim.
A. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016] where residents were parking on access roads that the signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.
B. In UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company therefore did not have standing to claim.
C. In Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] it was also found the signage was forbidding and so the matter was one of trespass. The parking company did not have standing to claim.

It is evident from the 3 cases above that if a trespass had occurred on the night the PCN was issued then only the landowner can make a claim against the driver and your client does not have any standing to claim and as such their authority to operate will be challenged vigorously.

It is clear that your client has no case and as such it is requested that you advise your clients of the facts and instruct them to cancel this PCN with immediate effect

Letters of complaint are being sent to {NAME OF MP INCLUDED } the MP for {RK's HOME TOWN INCLUDED } and also to the relevant trade bodies to make them aware of the way your client is behaving.



Yours Faithfully

RK

BS_Newbie

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Do the search, this has been discussed to death. No passport, no driving licence.

Complain to the ICO if they refuse the SAR without this excessive data trawling. They know who you are full well if they are shaping to sue you.

They havent refused it and in fact it was a very polite reply from a MR Bond (not james) the DPO

Dear Mr xxxxxxx
We acknowledge receipt of your request.
The information provided is sufficient to identify you for the purposes of sending the information by post to address.
If you require the information emailing to you then we would require additional information.
Are you satisfied with the information being posted?

Coupon-mad

Tell them yes, post it first class.

appointments with Citizens Advice Bureau are going to be made

No they are not - and don't say so! It's about the weakest position a consumer can have, sadly, to consult the CAB abut this scam that they just don't get.

So no saying you will, as you actually lose leverage and credibility as a robust Defendant!

BS_Newbie

So here we are two and a half years after my last post and this hasn't gone away.
Quick summary
This is regarding a PCN  received from CPM on the 17/12/2018. RK is a driver for local Pizza Co and on the night in question RK was out and about delivering Pizzas and had parked in a small car park located by the flats he was delivering to . When he got back to his car he had received a windscreen ticket . RK was gone for a very short period of time and can’t remember exactly how long but it was no more than 10 minutes.

it seems Gladstones are intent on pursuing this one and now the RK has received their latest piece of correspondence dated 08/03/21 stating they are waiting to issue court proceedings in line with the content of PAP for debt claims..
RK obtained a letter from his employer confirming he was on legitimate company business when the PCN was issued and RK also emailed Gladstones listing several examples of court cases which were ruled against parking companies but none of this has made any difference – they are after their pound of flesh !!

RK is now panicking somewhat over this. Although I have dealt with several PCN’s successfully over the years I have never had to deal with one that went this far and so I thought I would seek further  advice as to what you feel may be appropriate as the next step.

Gladstone's are claiming the original £100 plus the usual £60 for further costs they say they've incurred !!

RK is now writing a letter of compliant to the BPA and their local MP too.
Timeline of events as a summary provided below and very happy to post up the letters that have been sent .

Le_Kirk

Seems like you are at least on top of the record keeping.  As they have sent you a Letter of/before Claim but not yet a N1 claim form, you will just have to wait until they do, meantime you could refresh your memory by reading the NEWBIE sticky and look at the latest standard defence template.

Umkomaas

RK is now writing a letter of compliant to the BPA and their local MP too.

Tell him to leave the BPA out of this - UKCPM are members of the IPC. What did he want to complain about to the BPA?

Johnersh

That sign doesn't offer parking:
1. You are not a resident
2. You don't have a permit
3. Youre not entitled to a permit
4. You cannot obtain a permit
5. The sum of £100 is not a parking fee, but a payment for breach of contract. 

The terms put the o/p immediately into breach of contract. There was no offer s/he could accept and perform without being on breach. It is impossible to perform. 

The contract should be void under the doctrine of impossibility. Pace v lengyl explains this nicely. 

BS_Newbie

Le_Kirk said:

Seems like you are at least on top of the record keeping.  As they have sent you a Letter of/before Claim but not yet a N1 claim form, you will just have to wait until they do, meantime you could refresh your memory by reading the NEWBIE sticky and look at the latest standard defence template.

Thanks very much .
There is a very organised file with everything printed out in date order as well as the little spreadsheet which we did in anticipation that they mau just do something like this .

Reading up on how to prepare the defence is on the to do list too !!

BS_Newbie

Umkomaas said:

RK is now writing a letter of compliant to the BPA and their local MP too.

Tell him to leave the BPA out of this - UKCPM are members of the IPC. What did he want to complain about to the BPA

Thanks for that - I will pass that to the RK ..
I think they had seen the BPA mentioned on line and the RK is somewhat incensed that as they were going about their work it seemd Gladstones and CPM are deaf to this and a complaint is what was going to be sent about their barrage of demands for payment and several  threats of court action .

I've jst seen another thread on the forum about a lady writing to their MP and winning against Gladstones so hopefully a word in the shell like of our local MP might help also.
Also the RK (who is a young driver and not as cynical to the ways of these sharks as I am ) finds it incredible that despite pointing out they were working and has provided a letter from their employer confirming the same and also pointing out several court cases where the PArking Co have lost in v similar circumstances CPM are doggedly pursuing this one !!
The RK was all for paying the £100 request for payment at the start and took my advice to absolutely not pay them anything and so now is now v unhappy that they may have to go to court which is why I am helping them so much .

BS_Newbie

Johnersh said:

That sign doesn't offer parking:
1. You are not a resident
2. You don't have a permit
3. Youre not entitled to a permit
4. You cannot obtain a permit
5. The sum of £100 is not a parking fee, but a payment for breach of contract. 

The terms put the o/p immediately into breach of contract. There was no offer s/he could accept and perform without being on breach. It is impossible to perform. 

The contract should be void under the doctrine of impossibility. Pace v lengyl explains this nicely. 

Thanks very much Johnersh.
That is awesome - a whole defence right there in 5 lines!!  When put in that extremely clear and succinct way, it is very clear how totally ridiculous this whole situation is but this seems to make no difference to CPM..
That will be added to the defence document we are working on.