Gladstone Solicitors - Pretending 'Code of Conduct' is a lawful reason to add on further charges?

adtjag

Hey there,
A ticket was issued to my address for 'unauthorised parking' in a private spot. 
I thought the case was dead after all these months as they hadn't responded to me in a while, but I recently got an email from them. After asking them what legal authority they have to add on further charges, they stated a segment of the IPC Code of Conduct as a reason... the chances are low, but is this something they can rely on in court? (if it came down to it).

Our correspondences are here below:
1. Gladstone...


2. Myself...


3. Gladstone...

Fruitcake

If they try court, and they may well do, then you include the abuse if process point from the thread of the same name written by beamerguy that you already know about from your other thread. The scammer's CoP/CoC is made up by the parking scammer's old boys club, and has no legal standing. Judges up and down the country have thrown out the extra charges, although the scammers may refer to a recent case they won on appeal, but that does not affect any other court decision.

Did you reveal the driver's identity in previous communications because you have done so in your initial post. If the scammers don't know the identity of the driver then you should edit your post before you do anything else. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people. The Keeper has protections in law that The Driver does not.
Parking scammers and their scamlicitors read this forum.

adtjag

Thanks for such a speedy response Fruitcake! 

Would a response back to them stating that the IPC Code of Conduct is merely a guideline, rather than an actual law, and the Abuse of Process point be sufficient enough? Or would you recommend any other points I should include in my response to get the, off my back?

Fruitcake

Personally I wouldn't bother to do anything until you get a court claim, but you could respond as above if you wish. It depends on how much of your time you want to waste.

I think you would be better off getting pics of the site and signage and finding out who the landowner is and complaining to them, especially if this is about residential parking. If the latter is the case then you need to read the lease/AST of the resident. 

Have you complained to your MP yet about this unregulated scam?

D_P_Dance

Consider a complaint to the SRA.

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/

However you phrase you letter, it will not get them off your back. but a judge will no doubt read it.  

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs, and in some cases, cancellation. 

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 later this year,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these companies, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, 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/of these Private Parking Companies.

t

beamerguy

Be aware that Gladstones formed the SCAM IPC 

The IPC code of practice is so designed to enhance the scam and is only applicable to the parking companies who belong to this members club.

About the £60 fake add-on, the Supreme court made it crystal clear that the parking charge includes the cost of operating the business and debt collection is part of this.

The Supreme court also made it crystal clear that the code of practice was NOT a contractual document

What part of this do Gladstones NOT understand ....... well we do know that Gladstones know very little

ABUSE OF PROCESS is what the courts say and have already told Gladstones ... many times
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

Coupon-mad

After asking them what legal authority they have to add on further charges, they stated a segment of the IPC Code of Conduct as a reason... the chances are low, but is this something they can rely on in court? 

No - Judges don't take the CoPs seriously - but please can posters stop calling adding £60 'abuse of process' like that phrase means the same thing?  It doesn't.  Abuse of the court process covers lots of conduct and is NOT the same thing as adding money.  I've said this before!   

In your court submissions in due course, just call it 'double recovery' (i.e. trying to claim the same costs twice) = unrecoverable.

adtjag

Thanks for all your responses, I've written up the following which I was going to send... I've incorporated a few different points which I found scouring the different threads you've all shown me:

Hi,

In my previous email, I specifically asked what lawful authority you or your client have to enforce additional costs. You have since sent me a response back stating an IPC Code of Practice segment, which is almost laughable as you are very well aware that Gladstone has strong ties to the sham organisation of the IPC. 

Did you expect me to be duped into believing a Code of Practice holds the same power as an actual law? The UK Supreme Court even made it clear that the IPC CoP is NOT a contractual document.

Seeing as you and your client are well aware of the IPC Code of Practice, you seem to have conveniently forgotten about section 14.1 which states:

14.1 Operators 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 the Code.

The fact of the matter is that you have added on further charges to the original, and you have then attempted to dupe me by responding to my question "What legal authority do you or your client have to add these additional charges?" with a response about the IPC CoP, which you are well aware, is NOT a law. 

I know you're probably frothing at the mouth to mention the Beavis v Supreme Court case, but the following is what was stated by Judge Taylor in Southampton County Court (June 2019) as he dismissed a similar case:

"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,"

You are also well aware of the countless times you have lost in court over adding these double recovery charges. During a case held in Mayor's and City of London court, on the 12th of January 2020, Judge Shanty Mauger stated that not only is the case invalid due to Abuse of Process, but the inflated charge itself is indeed ILLEGAL under the PoFA. 

If you require more proof of the countless times that Judges have thrown out identical cases to mine over Abuse of Process due to the addition of these scam charges, then by all means take my case further so we can all waste our time and energy, as the end result will be the same as all these other cases which have been thrown out.

I will need your full name M*******, as I will be reporting this incident to the SRA and to my local MP. In addition to this, I reserve my right to counter-claim against you and your client over this.

You have 14 days to respond back to me.

 

Coupon-mad

The UK Supreme Court even made it clear that the IPC CoP is NOT a contractual document.

No it didn't.

No such case:

the Beavis v Supreme Court case,

but the following is what was stated by Judge Taylor in Southampton County Court (June 2019) as he dismissed a similar case.

No point quoting that. 

A Southampton 'struck out' DJ Taylor case was appealed and the Senior Judge felt that the claim should not have been struck out and reset it for a hearing.  NB: the Judge DID NOT say that adding £60 was OK (it is not) but that is the reply you will get back, if you continue to send them this pointless stuff.

No point threatening a report to the SRA about something that doesn't breach SRA standards.

Stop taking the bait. You look like a half-clued up (but not fully getting it) victim and that doesn't help you.

adtjag

Thanks for the response Coupon-mad, 

I agree I took a heavy approach in response to them so that they don't bother carrying on... but you're right, I should probably double check the things I've found on these forums before using it haha

My response was intended to be tailored around the addition of a further £60 and being intentionally misleading by responding to my question about what lawful authority they have, by citing the IPC CoP and the Beavis vs ParkingEye (typo) case. 

Does the IPC's CoP hold any legal power in court? I thought not after reading everyone's response, so would that not count as misleading for Gladstone to respond to my question about what LEGAL authority they have to add on further charges... is this a form of Abuse of Process?

What key points would you suggest I focus on?

DoaM

adtjag said:

What key points would you suggest I focus on?

Preparing a skeleton defence while this is all fresh in your mind, in anticipation of a future court claim. Beyond that? Nothing - don't waste your (and our) time with this tit-for-tat.