We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a Merry Christmas. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
LPS Ltd/Gladstones Mediation Stage - Assistance
ra9jd
Posts: 8 Forumite
So, a Parking Charge Notice was issued as the driver (who was working for an airline) was on 12am finish to a 430am start (literally 4 hours), and was given a hotel room by work due to the shifts whilst helping out during a snowy period with the disruption that brings.
The 'PCN' was appealed with the letter below:
This was rejected and the following was then sent to LPS:
A POPLA code was sent, but an appeal via POPLA was not made in time, and LPS refused to renew/update the code. Then came all the threats, debt collector, letters, solicitor's letters etc. Then along came a Letter Before Claim, and an SAR was made and received. The County Court Letter came, which was defended with the following:
I have now reached the mediation stage, where Gladstones have put forward a case saying they're willing to go via mediation.
What is the advised route from here? How does my defence look?
Many many thanks in advance, you all do a great thing assisting others constantly.:money:
The 'PCN' was appealed with the letter below:
I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.
I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. In addition to this, the visit at the hotel was during a period of adverse weather, and the driver entered the car park at 01:09 am, in the middle of the night during the heavy snow period. The driver stayed at the hotel as offered by their employer due to the weather, following a late finish and onto a very early start of work. As you can see, they left the car park at 04:03 am, both times of which it was very dark. They have stayed at the hotel in the past before, and had no issues with parking fines, and do not recollect paying for parking or any fines. With the difficulty of reading any signs, they assumed that there were still no parking regulations at the hotel.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.
I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. In addition to this, the visit at the hotel was during a period of adverse weather, and the driver entered the car park at 01:09 am, in the middle of the night during the heavy snow period. The driver stayed at the hotel as offered by their employer due to the weather, following a late finish and onto a very early start of work. As you can see, they left the car park at 04:03 am, both times of which it was very dark. They have stayed at the hotel in the past before, and had no issues with parking fines, and do not recollect paying for parking or any fines. With the difficulty of reading any signs, they assumed that there were still no parking regulations at the hotel.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.
Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.
I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,
This was rejected and the following was then sent to LPS:
In accordance to my appeal, and your response, I will reiterate that I am the keeper of the vehicle which received this purported 'parking charge'. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. I am not liable and I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs are in small print and the onerous terms are not readable, this is also in addition to the adverse weather conditions as mentioned in my appeal letter, which you have yet to mention whether it has been accepted or rejected.
Should you fail to cancel this PCN immediately, I require the following information with your template rejection:
1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
2. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.
3. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
I am alarmed by your contact and I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me, or this vehicle. I deny liability and will not respond to debt collectors. You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint to your client landowner.
As previously requested, if you are a current BPA member, send me a POPLA code. If you are an IPC firm, cease and desist with all contact.
Yours faithfully,
Should you fail to cancel this PCN immediately, I require the following information with your template rejection:
1. Does your charge represent damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
2. Please provide dated photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract.
3. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
I am alarmed by your contact and I do not give you consent to process any data relating to me, or this vehicle. I deny liability and will not respond to debt collectors. You must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, and should you fail to respond accordingly, your company will be reported to the Information Commissioner.
I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and will also be making a formal complaint to your client landowner.
As previously requested, if you are a current BPA member, send me a POPLA code. If you are an IPC firm, cease and desist with all contact.
Yours faithfully,
A POPLA code was sent, but an appeal via POPLA was not made in time, and LPS refused to renew/update the code. Then came all the threats, debt collector, letters, solicitor's letters etc. Then along came a Letter Before Claim, and an SAR was made and received. The County Court Letter came, which was defended with the following:
1) The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is also denied that the defendant entered any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.
2) The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in an inaccessible, illegible manner. Firstly, the font which is too small to be read from a vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the content would be unable to do so easily. This is primarily due to the positioning of the signage.
A key factor in ‘Parking Eye vs Beavis’ stated that the relevant signs were ‘Large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature’ the claimant has failed to address the points above. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
3) The claimant’s entrance signage unclear. According to Part E –Practise - “Entrance signs should: (b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and
conditions”. The signage at the entrance contains an overload of information with many different figures given in different sections. This does make the signage confusing and difficult to understand and therefore the information is not explicit.
4) The driver entered the car park at 01:09, and left at 04:03, both times of which the car park would have been very dark causing the signage to be difficult to read upon entry and exit in
addition to the lack of lighting at the car park at the time as well as the adverse weather conditions at the time all increasing the difficulty of reading the signage.
5)The claimants failed to comply with Section 14.1 of the International Parking Community code of practice. This states “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to of the code”. In this case, the use of ANPR as well as the overwhelming signage along with the lack of lighting could be considered predatory or misleading.
6)The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices,
and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and
that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
7)Any breach is strongly denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £85 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'. The signage at the car park does not make a clear indication of an £85 charge.
8) In addition to the Parking Charge Notice, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the
Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
9) In the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative’ costs, artificially hiking the sum to £238.73. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous, the claimant has added this additional cost for which no calculation or explanation is given and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
10) The Defendant is alarmed by this gross missconduct and abuse of process. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. It is an abuse of process for a Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for additional sums which it is not entitled to recover. In Claim number F0DP201T, 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton,
echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out BPA member Claimants Britannia and UKCPM. The Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: ''IT IS
ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
11) According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant
can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
12) Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from £3 to £85 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is
excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.
13) Even if the court is minded to accept that the terms were clear and prominent, the 'parking charge' tariff was indisputably a 'standard contract', which would be subject to a simple damages clause to enable recovery of the sum that 'ought to have been paid' which was believed to be £3 and no more.
15) In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success, with no legitimate interest or commercial
justification. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim and to allow such defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
2) The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in an inaccessible, illegible manner. Firstly, the font which is too small to be read from a vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the content would be unable to do so easily. This is primarily due to the positioning of the signage.
A key factor in ‘Parking Eye vs Beavis’ stated that the relevant signs were ‘Large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature’ the claimant has failed to address the points above. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
3) The claimant’s entrance signage unclear. According to Part E –Practise - “Entrance signs should: (b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and
conditions”. The signage at the entrance contains an overload of information with many different figures given in different sections. This does make the signage confusing and difficult to understand and therefore the information is not explicit.
4) The driver entered the car park at 01:09, and left at 04:03, both times of which the car park would have been very dark causing the signage to be difficult to read upon entry and exit in
addition to the lack of lighting at the car park at the time as well as the adverse weather conditions at the time all increasing the difficulty of reading the signage.
5)The claimants failed to comply with Section 14.1 of the International Parking Community code of practice. This states “You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to of the code”. In this case, the use of ANPR as well as the overwhelming signage along with the lack of lighting could be considered predatory or misleading.
6)The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices,
and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and
that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
7)Any breach is strongly denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £85 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')'. The signage at the car park does not make a clear indication of an £85 charge.
8) In addition to the Parking Charge Notice, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'costs' of £60, which the
Defendant submits have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.
9) In the Particulars there is also a second add-on for purported 'legal representative’ costs, artificially hiking the sum to £238.73. This would be more than double recovery, being vague and disingenuous, the claimant has added this additional cost for which no calculation or explanation is given and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
10) The Defendant is alarmed by this gross missconduct and abuse of process. Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. It is an abuse of process for a Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for additional sums which it is not entitled to recover. In Claim number F0DP201T, 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton,
echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out BPA member Claimants Britannia and UKCPM. The Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: ''IT IS
ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
11) According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA the claimant
can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost.
12) Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from £3 to £85 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is
excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.
13) Even if the court is minded to accept that the terms were clear and prominent, the 'parking charge' tariff was indisputably a 'standard contract', which would be subject to a simple damages clause to enable recovery of the sum that 'ought to have been paid' which was believed to be £3 and no more.
15) In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success, with no legitimate interest or commercial
justification. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim and to allow such defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
I have now reached the mediation stage, where Gladstones have put forward a case saying they're willing to go via mediation.
What is the advised route from here? How does my defence look?
Many many thanks in advance, you all do a great thing assisting others constantly.:money:
0
Comments
-
Hello and welcome.I have now reached the mediation stage, where Gladstones have put forward a case saying they're willing to go via mediation.
What is the advised route from here? How does my defence look?
Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread explains exactly how you should answer every question on your Directions Questionnaire.
You will find the rest of post #2 of the NEWBIES thread useful as your case progresses.0 -
If a POPLA code was issued then they can't be in the International Parking Community.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Who are LPS?
Local Parking Security Ltd, or
London Parking Solutions Ltd, or
Llawnroc Parking Services Ltd, or
something else?0 -
They are Local Parking Security Limited.
Yes, they provided a POPLA verification code0 -
Then you must remove mention of the IPC, as I said, or 'put it right' at WS stage.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
UPDATE: I have now been sent a Notice of Trial Date for early Dec 2020. It states that the claimant has until early Nov 2020 to pay the court trial fee or the claim will be struck out.
Should I just wait for correspondence from the court after the date the claimant has to pay the court fee?
Given the information above (including the need to 'put right' the IPC comment), should I do anything else at this stage?
Many thanks in advance
0 -
What happened when you complained to the landowner?
You have more work to do such as submit a directions questionnaire, exhibits, and witness statement. The notice from the court will tell you what to do and when, as will the bargepole step by step guide to court you were pointed to in February.
Don't sleepwalk into a default judgment because you haven't followed the court procedures.
Have you taken your own pics of the site and signage to submit with your exhibits?
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks1 -
DQ must have been done as the OP has a hearing date; however the witness statement, evidence and summary costs assessment still needs to be done BEFORE the deadline given in the court order. Don't wait for info from the court and miss your deadlines!Fruitcake said:What happened when you complained to the landowner?
You have more work to do such as submit a directions questionnaire, exhibits, and witness statement. The notice from the court will tell you what to do and when, as will the bargepole step by step guide to court you were pointed to in February.
Have you taken your own pics of the site and signage to submit with your exhibits?1 -
Get on with preparing your WS and evidence, as the NEWBIES thread tells you. The court won't write again to remind you.ra9jd said:UPDATE: I have now been sent a Notice of Trial Date for early Dec 2020. It states that the claimant has until early Nov 2020 to pay the court trial fee or the claim will be struck out.
Should I just wait for correspondence from the court after the date the claimant has to pay the court fee?
Given the information above (including the need to 'put right' the IPC comment), should I do anything else at this stage?
=PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
I have just had my telephone hearing, it seems that the Claimant did not send their WS docs to the court and so was given the opportunity to do so, and so we adjourned for about 2 hours later, giving the claimant the time to submit their bundle.
The judge called again and simply stated that the signage that was given has no evidence of the consequences of non-payment of the parking charges, and therefore has dismissed the claim
I was then advised that due to time constraints, my schedule of costs will also not be considered and that he will not accept my claim for £95 as he believes that I did not need to travel to attend the hearing. Is this still claimable due to taking time off from work, as well as my other costs such as research and prep time, etc.
1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 246K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards