Parking Ticket - Letter Before Claim - Gladstone Solicitors

olivery14

Hi Everyone,

Looking for some help on a parking charge notice, I’ve ignored all letters for a year or so and now have a Gladstone solicitors letter. 

Being completely honest I booked parking using a third party (just park) which I regularly use for this car park - managed by Car parks management.

I paid for parking from 3pm to 6pm and then at around 6pm (need to work out exact time) I used just parks app and extended my stay and booked from 6.15pm to 9pm as I realised I was 10mins over time.

Essentially I have received a £100 fine for being 3 mins over my time of 6pm which I paid for and I extended from 6.15pm to 9pm as soon as I realised and didn’t think I would have a ticket in that 15mins in between.

can i argue that 3 mins to fine someone £100 is excessive and disproportionate. How can they justify a £100 fine for someone who regularly pays to use this car park (I have records of payment on numerous other occasions as it’s a car park I use near to work)

I was literally 3 mins over my time (see picture)

letter of the law they can argue breach of contact and I guess they would be in the right but can I return with an argument of it being excessive and unfair or will I lose this one?

do I go to court on this? 

Redx

Legal questions like the above should be put to qualified lawyers and judges , not volunteers on a parking charge forum !

However , what you should be doing is reading the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum in announcements

Read the section on the LBC stage

Email a SAR to the DPO at the PPC attaching redacted copies of 2 recent utility bills as proof of I D under the GDPR law

Reply to G s with the 30 day hold letter

The PPC decides if it goes to court over the matter , they have 6 years to issue a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton. UK CPM do sue people

olivery14

Thanks @Redx legal questions I agree should be put to a lawyer or judges but asking their advice would cost me £100s and defeat the purpose of trying to save money. 

Can anyone help me by putting information into Lehman’s terms so I can understand. The SAR to the DPO at the PPC doesn’t make much sense to me.

I just want to know if people think I should pay the fine of £170 or not (£100 being the fine and £70 costs now)

It does seem excessive given I went 3mins over the time I paid for and had paid for parking from 3pm to 6pm and then realising I had gone past 6pm I then paid from 6.15pm to 9pm. I agree there was a window when my car wasn’t covered. So they could argue this in court and be correct.

Do I just pay it? Any advice would be great I’m an honest customer who has made a simple human mistake and don’t want to be billed £170 as it’s completely extortionate for what Ive done 

Redx

The SAR is to obtain all your data , standard advice when an LBC arrives , even if you don't understand why

The £70 addition is fully explained in other threads on here , especially ones mentioning the Wilkinson case and the Recorder Cohen judgment

The £100 default daily tariff has been around for a decade and your argument about it being excessive was dismissed in the Barry Beavis case in 2015 , where £85 was not considered excessive or unconscionable , so very difficult to argue against And you will most likely fail to convince a civil court judge when the Supreme court decided it 6 years ago

So no , arguing about it being excessive won't work in almost any parking case since 2015

No we don't agree with anyone paying £170 , the dispute should be resolved in court , not by paying debt collectors !!

You may have a valid argument under contract law and grace periods and the IPC CoP , in court , but the claimant may have a valid claim for breach of contract , that is for a judge to determine after hearing legal arguments from both sides , which is the crux of this matter

Anyone wishing to pay should have paid the discounted £60 at the beginning , not wait until it's £170 and then ask

BTW , plan A is your best option , and it's an unpaid invoice , not a fine

olivery14

Thanks for getting back to me I appreciate it @Redx in your honest opinion should I pay then?

If this gets to court, they have a photo of my car at 6.03pm and will have a record that I paid for parking up until 6pm and then later extended it. This will show a clear breach of contract even if it’s only 3 mins so surely they will win based on this alone….

The Barry Beavis case shows I can not argue that the fine is excessive and unreasonable. So therefore my argument would stand to lose in court. £170
for 3 mins late would be deemed “acceptable” in a court of law. I think it’s ridiculous but it’s not my call unfortunately. 

If I go to court it looks likely I will lose in which case the bill will be more than £170 so in my best interests to pay now. The facts are I overstayed my parking and breached the contract. 
 

Redx

I gave my honest opinion earlier , where I said we don't recommend paying debt collectors ,, so no , my opinion is let a judge decide ! ( I never give a dishonest opinion  😋😋😋 )

My other honest opinion is to have maybe paid the £60 discounted price when the NTK PCN arrived at the beginning

You don't know how a court claim would go , but you definitely won't win by arguing that the £100 is excessive , because they will counter with the Beavis judgment

You can and should argue against the unlawful added £70 debt collection charge

The IPC CoP has a section on grace periods , have you read it. ?

KeithP

olivery14 said:

If I go to court it looks likely I will lose in which case the bill will be more than £170 so in my best interests to pay now. 

...and even if it gets to court you will be arguing that £70 of that £170 is unrecoverable.

D_P_Dance

I just want to know if people think I should pay the fine of £170

It is not a fine and anything more than £100 is orobbly unlawful, read this and complain to your MP,

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

Also read this 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/03/waiting-for-space-is-not-parking.html

1505grandad

"Car parks management"  -  can you state the full name of the ppc.

Coupon-mad

Of course you don’t pay it.  Read the NEWBIES thread, this is perfectly defendable if they try court.

olivery14

@Redx thank you. Looks like court it is then, I’m happy to take this all the way. Does anyone have an idea on total court costs if the worse was to happen and I lost?

Thanks for your advice on the IPC CoP I have read this and grace periods should be given if you go over your parking time. I would argue that 3 minutes isn’t a very long grace period to give. 

The unlawful £70 debt collection charge they have argued is in top of £100 parking charge because of time/resources spent facilitating the recovery of the unpaid parking charge pursuant to its ATAs code of practice and the terms and conditions of the contract.

Basically there time and effort and expense in chasing me, hard to prove in court but surely they could have an argument with this.