Gladstone solicitors letter - cowboy signage

parchway2021

Hi all

A letter from Gladstone solicitors was received in December 2020 for an outstanding PCN from December 2018 asking for a total of £160. During the incident in question, the vehicle was parked in a privately owned off-road car park, with intentionally misleading signage. The sign read as follows (attached picture.):

20p - 1 hour
40p - 2 hours
<gap with rubbed out prices >
<gap with rubbed out prices >
£3.00 - 12 hours
£3.20 - 24 hours

£1.80 was put into the machine which one would assume would be more than enough for a short stop of just over 2 hours given the sign. 2 hours and 20 minutes later, a PCN on the windshield was found asking for £60, increasing to £100 after 14 days. The PCN was not paid, having taken advice from outdated forums. It should have been appealed as the signage is clearly intended on misleading people into putting the wrong money in.

Fast-forward to after the letter is received in December 2020, an email was sent to Gladstone solicitors asking to verify the legitimacy of the letter, and to supply any given evidence. A reply has just been received from Gladstones with attached pictures of the vehicle in question and apparent previous correspondence of overdue PCN from PPL that was sent and not received.

What should be done next to combat this PCN? The signage was clearly intentionally trying to mislead people into putting the wrong money in. It could be said there is also an abuse of process as they are now claiming £160 instead of the original £60. if this was go to to court, what would the chances be for someone who is defending on the ground of abuse of process + intentional misleading prices? Is there anything that could be cited to aid in the defense?

Any advice is highly appreciated.
Parchway

parchway2021

NTK Issued 15th Jan 2019 :

Dear <name>
Payment for the Parking Charge Notice <number> is overdue.

Please pay the amount of £100.00 now

We recently issued Parking Charge Notice (PCN) <number> to your vehicle because it was parked in a
manner whereby the driver became liable for a parking charge at <address>
that we are authorised to manage by our client. This PCN was issued on the 2nd December 2018
and has not been paid. The reason we issued the PCN to the vehicle is as follows:
In accordance with the signage that is clearly and prominently displayed on site, those drivers who break
the terms and conditions of parking are liable to pay a charge. We have requested your details from DVLA
as the registered keeper of the vehicle (through the Reasonable Cause criteria of pursuing an outstanding
parking charge).
We, the Creditor, now request this amount is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. If
you were not the driver of the vehicle, you should notify us (in writing using the form attached) of the name
of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and pass this notice on to the driver.
You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this notice is
given – the amount of the unpaid parking charge specified in this notice has not been paid in full, and we do
not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, under Paragraph
9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 we will have the right to recover from the
keeper so much of that parking charge amount as remains unpaid. The case will then be passed to our Debt
Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed. The overdue charge
will increase to £160.00 in the first instance of further action.

nosferatu1001

TYhat isnt how contracts work, though
Up to 2 hours costs 40p. If you want to stay between 2 and 12 hours it costs £3. Youre not allowed to make up a new term - that 2 hours 30 min will cost £1.80 - and presume acceptance. 

parchway2021

Somewhat agree - I think the intent however is clearly malicious especially considering the disproportionate fine. It's the combination of the two which makes strikes me as a predatory setup. Do you think there's any grounds to this at all?

If not, would it still be worth defending on the grounds of a disproportionate fine (20 minutes late for £100) and an abuse of process (£60 added to the bill)? I've read other hearings where people have had success citing abuse of process with gladstones.

Le_Kirk

We don't claim abuse of process any more but it can be called double recovery and it is still against their signs, against POFA and against the unfair terms in CRA.

KeithP

Whatever it's called - abuse of process or double recovery - it is not a defence to the claim.
It is only useful if the claim is already lost and to try and reduce the sum claimed.

nosferatu1001

How is it "predatory"? 
You want to stay more than 2 hours but less than 12? You pay £3. Your stance is equivalent to wanting 5 cans, they sell singles or 6, you decide you want 5 from the 6 pack and only pay 5/6

parchway2021

@kieth @Le kirk 
ok, thanks. It sounds as if my sign defense may not be good enough - i'm not really sure what else I can cite to defend apart from the disproportionate amount then. Is it worth trying to settle for a lower amount? 

Put it another way - can you think of a single reasonable explanation for the pricing structure to be that way? Using your analogy, you could by 12 individual cans for £2.40 but a 12 pack costs £3. There even used to be options there, but they've been altered likely for this exact reason. 
Obviously on face value, they advertised a service that was not adhered to, agree with you there. But in my opinion it's pretty obvious it's structured this way to mislead people. 

parchway2021

Sorry, second part directed to @nosferatu to answer their question. I agree with you largely - just trying to explain my point of view to see if there's any grounds

Fruitcake

Your signage defence point might be good enough. It will depend on what the rest of the signage looks like, so you need to get pics of the site and signage. Also have a look at Google Street View (GSV) to see if there is anything useful there. You can use the clock icon and then the slider to view earlier images.

Inadequate signage is one of the points already included in the defence template should you get a LBC or LoC in the near future, so you need to be ready for one.

parchway2021

Thanks Fruitcake for your reply. I'm attaching 3 more pictures of the signage for review - 2 from street view and one of my own. What sort of things should I be looking for here?