Letter before claim - PAP etc.... Gladstones

Gubbs14

Hi
Firstly thank you everyone for this forum, it has been excellent so far. I have read many many threads, including the Newbies but still need some support with a Letter Before Claim etc.  I have requested a SAR, and sent an E-mail to Gladstones requesting restriction of data processing and the case should be put 'on hold', together with my 'service' address.  I have completed a defence, as this may well continue to Court. I intend to continue to fight this.  I have copied below my defence and would appreciate any comments anyone may have.  Sorry in advance if anything is incorrect! I'm happy to provide copies of anything that may be needed, and have provided a copy of the sign listed in my defence (sorry its so big but I couldn't get it any smaller!).


Defence:

I have received your Letter Before Claim dated 27th February 2020.  Please note that this letter covers the Pre-action Protocol (PAP) under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

I deny any debt to Parking Control Management (UK) Limited - PCM.

The driver is not identified in your letter. I have received a letter before claim in relation to the above referenced case and I have a strong belief that you may use the presumption of keeper liability based upon Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films. Unless you have evidence of who the driver was, and you don't in this case, then no such presumption can be made based on those cases.

A Subject Access Request was sent to Parking Control Management UK Limited, requesting all copies of the documents.  These were received on 14.3.2020.  It is questioned that within the provided case report from Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd, under the date of 13.12.19, that the “driver name” is myself.  Again, I repeat, the driver of the vehicle has never been provided. It is also noted that my address on this case note has slightly changed.  I require to be informed how and where this information was obtained.

Please confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass.

It is accepted that the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015, established a principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the driver’s action as prescribed therein.

However, the signage mentioned in the Notice to Keeper is approximately 3.4 metres (11 foot) high up on the wall of the building.  The sign was not seen, and due to its height, I would have had great difficulty in reading it anyway. At the time of the alleged contract, when the car was first parked, approximately 16:40pm, it was dark (2.12.19), and there is no lighting above the sign.  I was picking up a new tenant (who took tenancy at approximately 16:25pm) of the block of flats. An employee of Paradigm Housing Group, had informed the new tenant that it was perfectly acceptable to park in this space for a short period of time. The gentleman issuing the ticket, who was caught photographing the car at 16:52, was challenged on this, and when this was explained to him and he was asked to delete the photographs, he nodded, as if to acknowledge that he would not be taking this further. There were witnesses to this effect. I do not believe that the action from the gentleman acting on behalf of PCM was legitimate.  I was “loading passengers” not parking. The vehicle was stopped for a short period of time at the entrance of a place of residence, and was not parked. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading/disembarkation. Brief stops by visitors or residents - even if not in a bay - are not parking contraventions. The persons being loaded, included the new tenant who had several bags to load, and a disabled person who does have a council issued Blue badge.  I believe this is a predatory practice which is against the IPC CoP (which Gladstones Directors themselves wrote) and unprofessional.

The SAR request has included a Note for case, which states that “the driver left the site before to print out the ticket”.  This is untrue.  The gentleman left the vicinity as soon as he had taken the pictures of the car. On calling the Permit Team shortly after the gentleman took the photographs of the front of the car, no response was received, as by this time, it was a couple of minutes to 5pm which is close of business.  It would not have been possible to obtain any sort of parking permit at that time anyway. A call was subsequently made to the PCM permit team, who advised only then, that only disabled drivers may park in this car park with PCM’s own blue badge, and no residents or visitors are allowed too.  The sign is ambiguous. Now that I have a copy of the wall signage from PCM, I can see that it alludes to requiring a disabled permit (a Blue badge, but only one issued by Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd).  It does not state that only disabled persons can park there.

Please confirm that your client's contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court.

I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.  The maximum sum that the statute allows (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the Act) to be potentially recovered from a keeper, is the sum on any compliant and properly-given Notice to Keeper. Double recovery is disallowed, and the fluctuating escalated 'added costs' in the demands you and your client have sent are extortionate and unconscionable penalties in themselves, as was found by Judge Taylor: -

"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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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."

Numerous attempts to use the cases in court have found little favour with judges and have resulted in numerous charges thrown out as a result. What this means to the Parking Management Company is that costs are racked up as a result of having to pay for legal representation and the winning defendant's costs for the day.

I have a letter from Trace Debt Recovery UK Limited which states "if actions is taken "It will result in a County Court Judgement."  This is a lie.  A CCJ can only be issued if the case has been to Court, and I have not paid any fine or other monies due within one month.

It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.

To continue in these circumstances will be presented to the court as being vexatious in nature and a higher costs amount will be presented to the court. A counterclaim for the unreasonable use of my personal details if, and when the claim goes ahead from your company, will also be added.

This letter would be shown to the court to support that higher cost claim.

I believe that your letters fall far short of the professional standards required by the SRA. I shall therefore be using this exchange of letters as evidence in court and shall be reporting your company for breach of the following SRA code: Chapter 11 O(11.1) that “you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity.”

In addition, as you also operate the IAS, I shall be reporting a breach of the SRA Conflict of interest code: Chapter 3 Para O(3.4): you do not act if there is an own interest conflict or a significant risk of an own interest conflict.

Your PCN notice states that PCM (UK) Ltd are “agents of the landowner.”  As the land owner is Paradigm Housing Group themselves, Land Registry Title No. BD300268, they are within their rights of land ownership to give permission for someone to park on their own land should they wish to do so.

Please advise your client that any court action will be vigorously defended.

I look forward to your response

 

Yours Faithfully

Umkomaas

Wait until you receive a formal court claim before you send any form of defence to anyone, certainly not Gladstones!  If you get a court claim, it will inevitably include costs not allowed by statute, and you need to familiarise yourself with the following, and the template Defence. But you're acting prematurely at present, hold back!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6107909/britannia-parking-v-crosby-southampton-judgment-attach-to-defences-or-witness-statements#latest

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76880595#Comment_76880595

Gubbs14

Ok.  So now I have received a letter from Gladstones dated 23.3.20 refusing my restriction for processing data and giving me 30 days to reply to the PAP.  They say this has been extended to 30th April 2020 (probably because they have very few workers working from home etc). Should I send the above defence to them as a PAP or wait for legal proceedings?  Thank you.

KeithP

Gubbs14 said:

Should I send the above defence to them as a PAP or wait for legal proceedings?

Please read again Umkomaas' reply from 15 March at 10:23PM

beamerguy

Gubbs14 said:

Ok.  So now I have received a letter from Gladstones dated 23.3.20 refusing my restriction for processing data and giving me 30 days to reply to the PAP.  They say this has been extended to 30th April 2020 (probably because they have very few workers working from home etc). Should I send the above defence to them as a PAP or wait for legal proceedings?  Thank you.

Assume you fully understand about the Gladstones / IPC scam.

Assume also that Gladstones are claiming a fake amount of £60. Gladstones know this is unlawful, so many courts have told them and then spanked them

In your response to a letter of claim, you ask them on what legal authority they have to add unknown amounts.
The may reply but as they don't have any legal authority it will be a fabrication or as we know a lie.
If they fail to reply, you can show a judge your letter you tried and were ignored.

You can spank Gladstones easily and you can find out how to do this by carefully reading two threads where you will see the Gladstones spankings ..... these will increase
ABUSE OF PROCESS 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal/p1?new=1

ABUSE OF PROCESS PART 2
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

And then the new CIVIL PROCEDURE coming in to force 6th April 2020
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6110391/abuse-of-process-supplementary/p2

If Gladstones lie in their WS they can be held in contempt of court

D_P_Dance

Is that sign a contract to park ones car, or build an aircraft carrier?  Durey no judge in the land would agree that that is a fair contract.  It is even worse than ParkingEye's signs, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.