Gladstones letter before claim - £1600 of parking fines

milkyboy92

Are there any other potential flaws from the SAR which I could build on?

Any advice would be appreciated greatly.

Coupon-mad

milkyboy92 wrote: »

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

Yes, you know this from the POFA if they are relying on it the timelines are in Schedule 4 para 8.

If they were not relying on the POFA then they are still expected to send a NTK (or a follow up letter that may or may not be headed 'Notice to Keeper') but not mentioning the POFA, and they probably did send some sort of reminder letters?

The only reason NOT to send a NTK (at all) after a windscreen PCN is if the driver appealed early to the PCNs and blabbed about being the driver. If that happened then there was no need for them to apply to the DVLA, or send a NTK, at all.

- 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?)

Hahaha! Absolute joke of a firm.

Would it be true to say in any defence that you cannot be sure who in the family actually parked the car on all ten occasions and in the absence of any evidence it cannot be presumed it was the registered keeper as they are not the only driver in the family?

milkyboy92

If they were not relying on the POFA then they are still expected to send a NTK (or a follow up letter that may or may not be headed 'Notice to Keeper') but not mentioning the POFA, and they probably did send some sort of reminder letters?

The two NTKs are not headed 'Notice to Keeper' but are headed "Reminder Notices". It references POFA in the final paragraph stating that they have a right to recover the parking charge amount from the keeper of the vehicle if the £85 charge is not paid within 28 days of the reminder and will be increased to £160.

Would it be true to say in any defence that you cannot be sure who in the family actually parked the car on all ten occasions and in the absence of any evidence it cannot be presumed it was the registered keeper as they are not the only driver in the family?

That would be correct, it is a shared vehicle and there is no photographic evidence that the RK was the driver on any of the occasions.

beamerguy

milkyboy92 wrote: »

It references POFA in the final paragraph stating that they have a right to recover the parking charge amount from the keeper of the vehicle if the £85 charge is not paid within 28 days of the reminder and will be increased to £160.

As C-M said, they really are a joke of a firm, how Gladstones ever grew up to become "solicitors" <<<< REALLY ??? is beyond belief

You do know about this one ....
Gladstones told by Judge .... added £60 NOT LAWFUL

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76692888#Comment_76692888

Coupon-mad

Yes, as set out in the POFA Schedule 4, if they want to hold the keeper liable.

zhonguonuren

[FONT=&quot]I have to jump in here. There is an obligation on a parking company that issues tickets (ie there is a meter available where with ANPR there would not necessarily be) to state why it did not issue a ticket at the time of the alleged incident.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In our case it was obvious that the photographs had been taken manually. If an operator can take photographs he/she can put a notice on the windscreen. Not to do so would fall within predatory tactics of the ATA. We know however that the IPC/ATA is despicable.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I intend to have the IPC struck off as an ATA. Gladstones Solicitors (connected to IPC via Will Hurley and John Lewellyn Gladstone Davies) is currently under investigation (I want it struck off also) with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The matter is at last being taken seriously. Those that want to make an email complaint against Gladstones Solicitors should do so by email to
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]report@sra.org.uk[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Those who have read my story will know that we successfully brought a court case against the DVLA for breach of GDPR. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot]The DVLA sent a barrister - what a shocking waste of taxpayers' money (I donated the proceeds to charity).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is from the DVLA website which I used in court (this and other sections of it).
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/804467/mis546-giving-people-information-from-our-vehicle-record.pdf[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you are issuing a charge, you need to tell us why this could not be made at the time of the incident[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You need to confirm if a ticketing or ANPR system is in place[/FONT]

beamerguy

I intend to have the IPC struck off as an ATA. Gladstones Solicitors
(connected to IPC via Will Hurley and John Lewellyn Gladstone Davies) is currently
under investigation (I want it struck off also) with the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
The matter is at last being taken seriously.
Those that want to make an email complaint against Gladstones Solicitors
should do so by email to

I think we all agree that Gladstones and the IPC requires a full investigation and indeed
that Davies and Hurley go to prison for their huge scam

Before that, we must discover who in government, local government, the civil service protects
them and for what financial gain

Does Boris have a traitor ...... maybe he could answer that

It also seems that the SRA operates as an old boys club and just like the BPA don't
give a toss as long as their members pay them money