Gladstones FAQ letter - misleading, worth complaint to SRA and MP?

D_P_Dance

If you think that Gladstone are trying to add on unlawful amounts complain here. 


https://www.sra.org.uk/

Coupon-mad

No, not the Law Society!  The OP can't complain to the Law Society because they are not a customer of Gladstones.

DP the link needs to be to the SRA complaint form.

allymscott

@ Coupon-mad, yes, the LBC is exactly as mentioned, £80 estimated costs, total sum if it gets to court is £265. I have already told them that I am aware that these costs have been viewed as an abuse of process and been struck out in previous similar cases and have asked them to send me a PAP compliant LBC that removes these spurious costs or I will be complaining to the SRA and inviting the judge to strike the claim out on the basis that their initial LBC was not compliant and an abuse of process. I suspect I won't get a compliant one, my gut feeling is that they will go ahead with it, it will be down to the judge on the day if he allows the case to be heard in light of the non compliant LBC that started the whole process. 
If you think it's worth submitting an SRA/MPs complaint anyway then I will do. I can also include that as part of my defence and show the judge that this is part of a larger catalogue of abuse and incompetence from Gladstones. I don't suppose you have anything further about the ongoing SRA investigation? I have some other case details where the judge has called abuse of process and thrown claims out on the basis of unjustified added costs but if I could bring to the judge's attention that their letters to me are the same as some that are already being investigated then that's a bonus surely? 

Half_way

Throughout all of this it appears that you have made no effort to bring the managemetn agents/company into this, why??

They should be the top priority for putting a stop to this non sense and stopping the un regulated parking company form operating, it is they who should also be refunding you for any costs incurred so far as a result of their actions in allowing an unregulated company to operate on your property

Fruitcake

Do not refer to the fake add on costs as an abuse of process, but instead refer to them as an attempt at double recovery.

D_P_Dance

Have you seen this?

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

Have you complained to your MP?

allymscott

Just an update, it's been all quiet as far as actually getting served court papers is concerned, but Gladstones have randomly sent me another email requesting proof of my ID and stating :

 Please note our systems will not be updated until we are in receipt of the requested documentation.  Please also note therefore, that we cannot update any Data Controller/Data Processors, with whom we have shared your personal data with, until such times as we have received the same.

The email goes on to say :

Under the General Data Protection Regulations we are obliged to respond to your request within one month of receiving it but please note that the one month compliance will not start until we receive proof of your identity.  

 

As mentioned previously, I've used the same name throughout the process, there seems to have been some sort of clerical error between them and the parking company, but I'm not minded to help them get over their own incompetence. I wonder if this also means that they do intend to proceed with court action, but can't until I send them proof of my ID? (which I have no intention of doing). I've also not requested anything at all from them, so I really don't know where they've got that last bit from, other than it's a copy and pasted part of a general template letter that they use for various things and haven't been bothered to delete non-relevant parts. Am I likely to get notification if they have decided to drop it, or will I just stop hearing from them? The polite and professional thing would be to inform someone one way or the other, but on the basis of their correspondence so far professionalism does not seem to be at the top of their agenda.

Thanks to everyone who has replied so far, it's been much appreciated.

Fruitcake

Their comment about the 30 days beginning from when they receive proof of ID is not true. It says this on the ICO website.
There is no requirement to provide photo ID, or unreasonable detailed proof. Again this is covered on the ICO website.

If you submit an SAR to anyone, you must include proof of ID. Where a PPC is concerned, the V5C is usually the best. Alternatively any document with the correct name and address of the requester can be used. This could be a LBC or claim form, or redacted utility bills or redacted card/bank statements.
All will depend on how much you want or need the info.

You have the right to request and receive your personal data, and the right to complain to the ICO if you don't get it.

Jenni_D

What proof of ID did you send with your SAR?

allymscott

I've never sent an SAR. It's not that sort of case. I was ticketed whilst in my neighbour's allocated parking space at the flats where we live, with his permission. The whole thing is explained earlier in the thread, Gladstone's have randomly started sending these emails about a different name they have for me, but I've used the same name in all correspondence. It's an error on their end that I don't feel like helping them sort out if by doing so I'm making it easier for them to take me to court when they can't possibly win the case.