Gladstone Letter before Claim - Premier Park

FRK00

Hi everyone, 

Apologies for the post, slightly overwhelmed with all of the information on this.

i have received a letter from Gladstones requesting £170 for a parking ticket acquired in January 2019 from Premier Park.

The driver misread the signage and did not purchase a ticket as they did not read that the parking operated 24hrs.

The driver spoke to the pub that the ticket was from and was advised by an employee (assuming not the landlord) to ignore the ticket and the letters that were to follow.

Any advice on this matter would be hugely appreciated.

Kind regards, 


I have attached photos of all of the information received.

Fruitcake

The letter contains personal information. Ask a board guide (soolin or crabman) to delete the images. I have reported the post also because it contains personal info.

I suggest you save my comments so you can still refer to them in case you the whole thread gets deleted.

You appear to have missed the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES that tells you exactly what to do.

Start by complaining to the pub manager and/or brewery CEO.

Next, tell the PPC and solicitors in writing that whilst you deny the debt, you are seeking debt advice and therefore require the case to be put on hold for thirty days.

Then, read the sticky thread for NEWBIES, especially the second post that contains a guide to court written by bargepole. This takes you step by step from the LBC to the court hearing.

Get pics of the site and signage, including the entrance.

The advice to ignore a PCN has not been given here since the law changed nearly ten years ago.

Redx

Read the fifth post and second post in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum in announcements , follow the LBC advice in there , 2 items to do

1) email a SAR to the DPO at Premier Park

2) email Gladstone's with a 30 days hold notice whilst you seek debt management advice

Then wait for replies , then a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton will probably arrive in March

D_P_Dance

Amount due £170

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and 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

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also this,

"Abuse of process – the quantum

13. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued."

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

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

Coupon-mad

When you email Gladstones with the wording the LBC section of the NEWBIES thread, add a question as to whether they have read the new Code of Practice and doesn't their client realise that false debt recovery  £70 add-ons are banned now?

Read bargepole's thread about it.

FRK00

Hi, 

I emailed Gladstones with The recommended points in the thread, email attached.

I received a standard “acknowledgment of email” response that states “ If a Claim has not been issued against you, please be aware that your correspondence will be treated in line with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and we have up to 30 days to respond to your correspondence. Please note we do try to respond in advance of this deadline, however, if we have to request further information for example from our client to enable us to respond to your correspondence, a response may not be received until the end of the 30 day period. We would respectfully ask you do not contact our office or send further correspondence chasing a reply until the expiration of the 30 day period.”

Today is the 30th day since sending the email with no response, is it my responsibility to chase again? Or do I leave it and wait for a response? 

Does failure to comply with the 30 days give me any argument against the claim?

FRK00

Apologies, please see below attachment

Coupon-mad

 is it my responsibility to chase again? Or do I leave it and wait for a response? 
Does failure to comply with the 30 days give me any argument against the claim?

Nope.  But prod them again.

So far you said nothing about the fact debt recovery fees are now banned, even though I advised that you should have mentioned it.  Respond again because your email said nothing really (their LBC is perfectly OK).

You could adapt this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79013418#Comment_79013418

And you could mention the SRA (search the forum) and ask Gladstones if they want another complaint.

FRK00

Apologies, I sent the email before I managed to read your response! 

Not particularly good at this sort of thing so I would appreciate if you could have a skim over my drafted email below, open to all suggestions. Thanks for all of your help so far!

Hi,

Please see below email forwarded to yourself 30 days ago. I have yet to receive any response despite the 30 days mentioned in the Pre-Action Protocol for debt claims…

Please ensure that you have read and understood the new Code Of Practice and the ban on false debt recovery/ admin fees. As discussed by DLUHC’s Neil O’Brien, this is simply an attempt to extort money from motorists.

Please be advised that lack of (adequate) response and failure to comply with the new Code of Practice will result in an additional SRA Complaint.

KeithP

Keep in mind that while you have every right to that thirty days to seek debt advice and they have to provide it, the parking company has no obligation to acknowledge your request/demand.

Most reasonable companies would of course acknowledge that request - it's the courteous thing to do.

Coupon-mad

Never address a solicitor 'Hi'.

And they can't fail to comply with the new Code of Practice because solicitors are not bound by it.  So that would not be a reason to report a solicitor to the SRA.