Gladstones LBC (due imminently)

Coupon-mad

Do you know what, I can't recall a more complicated and ambiguous sign than that one. Sit and read it now.

So, if you stay as an unauthorised driver for up to two hours (as you were before 5pm), on the right it says the charge for that is actually £20. It's pretty clear.

But then you get a random 'failure to comply' (with what then?) = a PCN of £80'. How does that work?! Thought the charge was £20? Hugely ambiguous an misleading, which makes it an unfair consumer notice under the CRA 2015.

Hahaha, if you have not emailed Gladstones yet, ask them to interpret that sign and explain why the charge is £140 not £20. Ask for a breakdown, and ask under what circumstances is the £20 offered on the right payable, and why was the driver not charged what was advertised?

You really want them to dig a hole with their answer, pre-court, so keep pressing them!

DO NOT word it as driver. Word it as the puzzled registered keeper (unless you already blabbed about driving).

kugelblitzz

Hi all,

Back again as Gladstones have finally responded to me.

Here are the details they came back with:

• https://imgur.com/MVXC7X7 - response letter
• https://imgur.com/brTchXq - parking notice

Interestingly, they sent me a different version of the parking notice to the one I sent them. It seems they did not even check the one I sent as they are asking in the response letter where the £20 charge is stated. 

• https://imgur.com/dg3nZ6Z - the parking notice sign I sent them

Surely they can't just send me a digital version of the sign and completely ignore the other physical signs which clearly outline the other fees. I am also not satisfied they provided a proper breakdown of the £60 charge.

Should I go back to them and remind them of the parking sign I originally sent them, as well as ask for a proper breakdown?

Cheers.

beamerguy

Did Gladstones really send this garbage, ????
"The additional charge of £60 claimed by our client is approved by their accredited trade association"
Their so called accredited association the IPC was set up by Gladstones ???? WHAT A JOKE.

Do some reading on the scam IPC.
https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=ipc

The IPC/BPA are advising their members to break the law
Claiming they are allowed to by the ATA's code of practice ?
Neither you or the judge can be bound by a CoP as it is only for
members of each ATA
READ HOW THE BPA AND IPC entice their members to break the
law
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6083229/bpa-cop-clause-19-9-and-34-8

THAT SIGN: ....... cannot see anything about the fake £60 add-on

Who at Gladstones writes this nonsensical rubbish, which can only result in another spanking for them in court

kugelblitzz

Interestingly, in the Parking Charge Notice it states the following:

"The overdue charge will increase to £130 in the first instance of further action" - I don't recall this happening; I wonder why it was originally a fake £50 and was bumped up to £60. See https: //i.imgur.com/wMoTHqb.png

I plan to respond as follows:

1. Send the image of the physical sign once again, highlighting the £20 charge as per their pre-action protocol request.
2. Reminding them that the vehicle and registration was pre-authorised to park there from 17:00, so the timings only apply between 15:51 and 17:00. By the terms of the physical sign, this is "up to 2 hours" meaning £20. The sign states "if parking extends outside of the above hours, charges will be combined with parking tariffs" which is not relevant to this case as that applies to anything over 2 hours.
3. Asking them to point out where the £60 charge is stated on the sign that they have provided to me. Their letter states "Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/or other documentation.". There is no reference to it on that digital sign as you mentioned, Beamerguy.

Castle

kugelblitzz said:

Interestingly, in the Parking Charge Notice it states the following:

"The overdue charge will increase to £130 in the first instance of further action" - I don't recall this happening; I wonder why it was originally a fake £50 and was bumped up to £60. See https: //i.imgur.com/wMoTHqb.png

It's too late for them to make reference to the "fake" charge in the Parking Charge Notice; (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking).

Coupon-mad

I would just go with your #1 and #2 and attach a copy of the Southampton judgment that kicked out £60, as your #3:

1. Send the image of the physical sign once again, highlighting the £20 charge as per their pre-action protocol request.
2. Reminding them that the vehicle and registration was pre-authorised to park there from 17:00, so the timings only apply between 15:51 and 17:00. By the terms of the physical sign, this is "up to 2 hours" meaning £20. The sign states "if parking extends outside of the above hours, charges will be combined with parking tariffs" which is not relevant to this case as that applies to anything over 2 hours.
3. Attach a copy of the Southampton judgment (6 pages, the final decision only) in Britannia v Crosby & Anor* and ask why are Gladstones Solicitors not considering their duty to the court first and foremost, because they and their clients know that their sign says £20 and that they cannot add costs, not even if the IPC CoP (that Gladstones best buddies the IPC wrote) says so!

*I started a thread with that 6 page judgment in post #2 of it today.

kugelblitzz

Hello all, it's been a while. Seems these things move very slowly!

I have had some back and forth with Gladstones who insist the charge still stands, and if payment is not received in 30 days it is likely to proceed to the courts. That's fine, I'll just try refresh myself with the guidance and be as prepared as possible.

My question for today relates to when I submitted a SAR request to the University DPO. I was told some identification would be required before my data could be released. My student ID, drivers license, or passport were the three options I was given. Despite not sending anything, the data was released to me, including my vehicle details and registered address.

Is this a possible way to get the University to drop the charge given they have potentially breached data protection?

KeithP

kugelblitzz said:

My question for today relates to when I submitted a SAR request to the University DPO. I was told some identification would be required before my data could be released. My student ID, drivers license, or passport were the three options I was given. Despite not sending anything, the data was released to me, including my vehicle details and registered address.

Is this a possible way to get the University to drop the charge given they have potentially breached data protection?

No. They have obviously seen sense and realised they already know who you are and that they know your address.

kugelblitzz

Fair enough, just seems strange to set out the criteria for data release then bypass that completely. It could have been anyone requesting my data if they'd had the PCN number in that case, with no requirement to prove it was me.

KeithP

kugelblitzz said:

Fair enough, just seems strange to set out the criteria for data release then bypass that completely. It could have been anyone requesting my data if they'd had the PCN number in that case, with no requirement to prove it was me.

Yes, it could've been 'anyone' requesting your data, but 'anyone' didn't get your data.
They send your data to your known address.