Gladstones letter before claim - £1600 of parking fines

Coupon-mad

milkyboy92 wrote: »

Apologies, I have read countless threads in an attempt to compile a strong response to a LBC. Will a short email regarding seeking debt advice and their £60 charge suffice?

Yes, exactly as the NEWBIES thread says, because nothing - except landowner intervention, unlikely in this case - will cancel this before court action.

Yes, I believe they were windscreen PCNs. It's hard to recall when the PCNs were from nearly four years ago.

The difficulty in front of a Judge when talking about small print on signs, will be explaining why, if the driver got a PCN on their windscreen, did they repeat the behaviour again and again, and not go and read the terms more closely after the first event?

Be ready for that one, which makes this case more difficult.

Still worth fighting even if it just removes all the falsely added multiple of £60, and there is always a chance maybe, that the claim might fail on something like no landowner authority, or the Judge might agree that this is trespass at best and not a contractually agreed parking licence.

PCM v Bull and PACE v Lengyel cover that, go and find them by Googling Parking Prankster's case law. You can read what the Judges said and use them at WS stage.

milkyboy92

Hi all,

Thanks for all your comments and advice thus far. I've followed all protocols and currently awaiting a response from the SAR and Gladstones in relation to the case being put on hold.

In the meantime, I've managed to obtain some photographs (unable to post with links due to being a new user) of the signage at the car park and noticed a few things:

- A private land sign has been attached to a lamp post since the alleged claim, however, the sign does not mention that the land is owned by the local pub, but by LPS, and does not state that the car park is for pub customers only and is easily confused for a new employee as the car park is in close proximity of the new employee's office

- There is parking sign next to the pay and display machine detailing the terms and conditions of parking without a ticket but the sign is very small, size of an A4 piece of paper, which would make it impossible for a passing car to read the terms and conditions. The area is also very poorly lit which makes it even more difficult to read the terms and conditions

- The parking sign does not state that anyone parking without a valid parking ticket will be entered into a contract. It also does not state that an extra £60 will be included on top of the fine for failing to pay the £100 fine

- There are two more small private land notices to the left of the car park, however, these signs are not present against the fence in which the vehicle was parked on

Given these factors, are there any potential cases for defence in regards to the signage of the car park?

Redx

You can post dead links to pictures like imgur , just not live links , so dead not alive

The lps sign won't mention ownership , so you are wrong there , it will show them as contractors , but signs rarely mention ownership , if ever

The signs won't mention the legal word fine , so that won't be on any of them , not allowed to use that word

The extra £60 debt collection fee won't be mentioned , so that is correct

Coupon-mad

Yes, all of that is very good evidence for later, at WS and evidence stage when the Defendant talks about her confusion and being told to park there and not understanding why she was getting PCNs as she never saw a PDT machine near where she parked and believed she was authorised to park there due to working at the adjacent premises.

Photos do not go with a defence, only at WS stage, so read around some winning threads to see the difference (search for another one bites the dust and you find ALL court wins and ll their experiences and their defences and WS/evidence lists).

People this week have loved their wins; one person called it a delightful experience!

The extra £60 debt collection fee won't be mentioned , so that is correct

Thing is, it should do but it is great when it doesn't = CRA 2015 breach!

milkyboy92

Hi all,

Just thought I'd provide a quick update as the SAR data has come back from LPS. They have provided:

- Copies of the ten PCNs mentioned on the LBC
- Photographic evidence of the PCNs attached to the windscreen of the vehicle on the ten occasions
- 2 x NTKs which were sent to the RK (the RK has never received these and the PCN issue dates on both NTKs DO NOT match any of the ten PCNS?)

Am I right in thinking that LPS have not followed POPLA regulations as they have not sent NTKs for each PCN and the NTKs that they have sent do not match any of the PCNs?

The RK never received the two NTKs and therefore could not have identified the responsible driver? And even if they did send the NTK, the PCN references on the RTK do not exist so the RK would not have be able to identify the source of the claim?

I have also attached links to the signage around the car park as mentioned a few posts ago:

[Imgur](hxxps://i.imgur.com/F8EDSmD.jpg)
[Imgur](hxxps://i.imgur.com/cLpPi2d.jpg)
[Imgur](hxxps://i.imgur.com/f1E65Ye.jpg)
[Imgur](hxxps://i.imgur.com/aIOb7im.jpg)

Redx

Nothing to do with popla and there are no regulations in private parking

milkyboy92

Apologies Redx, I meant POFA 2012 (still getting used to the abbreviations).

Redx

POFA is not mandatory , but if a PPC fails to follow it , then they struggle to hold a keeper liable unless they can prove that the keeper and driver are one and the same

The CRA and POFA are laws , not regulations

They can issue an NTK without issuing a windscreen ticket , some companies like Parking Eye do it all the time , from Anpr cameras or handheld cameras

There is no obligation to issue a windscreen ticket

milkyboy92

Is there a timescale in which a PPC must provide a NTK following an alleged PCN?

Redx

The DVLA say it's 7 months because that time limit is imposed on the PPC to get keeper details