Work carpark fine - Gladstones

Player_1

Hi guys

Was hoping the experts could help me out on this one, long story short

So, during the Covid pandemic in 2020, where non key workers got sent to work from home, there was a change made to the parking process at my workplace

Usually, the company will keep an eye on non permitted personnel parking on the premises, however, between when COVID started and August, my employer got ES Parking involved and they took over, which I was unaware of

Some time in August, I visited the office for an essential meeting, unbeknownst to me of the change that was made, and I got hit with a parking fine for not displaying a parking permit

Now, here's the kicker...you need an authorsed badge / keyfob in order to get through the barrier and into the car park, (therefore...technically, already authorising me to park?)

I chose not to pay ES Parking, and they've now got Gladstones invovled which has resulted in a Letter Before Claim to take me to court

I've drafted out a defence, if someone can let me know if this is sufficient?

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 5th August 2020. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant driver / Keeper ' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3. The rear car parking area in question is accessible via an electronic barrier and only by means of a security photo id card issued to employees only. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto permitted to be there. A front car par exists for visitors or non permitted personal to park in

4. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to ‘Permit Holders Only’, and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

5. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'permitted' as per the terms of employment and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference.

6. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to permitted employees, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, employees are granted a right to park

Any help is greatly appreciated

Thanks

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

What happened when you complained to your employer and asked them to cancel it? It is never too late to get a landowner cancellation.

At this stage you should send an SAR to the PPC and a holding instruction to Gladstones telling them that whilst you deny the debt you are seeking debt advice and therefore require them to put your case on hold for thirty days in accordance with court pre-action protocol.

Coupon-mad

Why haven't your company cancelled this, seeing as this is their agent?

There was absolutely no justification in letting an ex-clamper parking firm into a gated development.

MalMonroe

I'm not sure why you didn't take the notification from ES parking straight to your employer and ask them to deal with it as soon as you received it.

Now you've gone to all the trouble of drafting a defence when you are perfectly entitled to park in that car park as you have, as you say, the required equipment to enter. (Badge and keyfob)

This is surely something for your employer to sort out for you? Why not ask them now, before this farce continues any further?

Player_1

The land is owned by a third party company...the landowner and employer refused to get involved in the matter

I emailed ES Parking in an attempt to prevent the claim, but this was ignored

The only communication I've had was with Gladstones, with the SAR attached, however, they declined the challenge

Johnersh

In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant driver / Keeper ' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices

Can we stop this now? This is not a menu of choices, but what is known as a pleading on the alternative - they are claiming that you are either (and will therefore argue to both of these). Funnily enough, an approach adopted in the defence too. 

This (para 2)

they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached

Appears rather inconsistent with the representations made at para 4. Just saying. 

I read Pace v Lengyl ahead of my permit case. 

Your defence is of course a matter for you. 

Coupon-mad

The template defence is there to use instead.

D_P_Dance

It is not a fine, have you read the newbies?  Have you complained to your MP?

Player_1

Coupon-mad said:

The template defence is there to use instead.

Thank you ...have submitted the defence using the template 

DP Dance - didn't consider the MP to be honest, has anyone got MPs that have been successful?

Half_way

Player_1 said:

Coupon-mad said:

The template defence is there to use instead.

Thank you ...have submitted the defence using the template 

DP Dance - didn't consider the MP to be honest, has anyone got MPs that have been successful?

As for the compli to your MP, it depends on what you say and the MP involved at the very least it will have a drip drip drip effect.

 As for your parking charge notice i would consider this to be a works issue, and you should inform your manager that this needs to be dealt with on works time, and that as a result of the actions of this unregulated parking company that your employer/manager may have to attend court and answer to a judge

Coupon-mad

Complaints to MPs caused the new law coming in next year, to regulate the industry.