Gladstones LBC - Parking Solutions 24 Ltd

Luffy135

Hi all, hope you are all well!

I have looked through the NEWBIES guide and starting my post here. 

Parked at my University and got a parking charge notice in 11/12/2017. (Can't remember what happened as I usually do pay everytime I park). I've ignored all debt collection letters and had moved house since but I have recently received a letter from Gladstones regarding a letter before claim (They carried out a UK search trace). Letter shown below:

https://imgur.com/a/8dcK5G3

I have contacted Parking Solutions 24 ltd with a SAR and have also requested they remove my old address and update with my current address. They have replied with the following: 
https://imgur.com/a/Nqv4eFe  (I've filtered out some junk pages) 

I have also contacted my university to get the PNC cancelled and they have replied: 

To get your PCN cancelled you would have needed to appeal (as per the front of the PCN received) within 28 days.  You should also have received some follow up letters to advising you of non-payment and that the matter will be escalated, and as this has now already  been escalated, regrettably we can no longer intervene.

My next step:

Contact Gladstone at the end of the month with the following: 

- To suspend any action for 30 days for you to take 'debt advice
- Include that its illegal to add the £80 solicitor's cost (I've looked through similar Gladstones posts but I can't find the right wording to use for this) 
- Ask them to remove my old address and update with current address

Is there anything else I need to do in the meantime? 

Many thanks in advance for any help on this. 

Coupon-mad

The £80 legal fees are not illegal but incorrect. The max legal costs for a small claim of this size are £50.  So you'd be saying that.

Separately, you should also be pointing out the slready-added £60 or £70 'debt recovery fee' was banned by tge Govt in February...blah blah.  Use the words I wrote in April for a few people (no idea who) about reporting them to the SRA for adding fake costs they know have been declared 'extortion'.

(And tell Gs to erase the wrong address).

Luffy135

Ah, thanks for the correction, I got mixed up between the two. 

I assume this is what you are referring to regarding the debt recovery fee: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79119887#Comment_79119887

Am I correct to just copy and paste everything in your comment EXCLUDING the last 2 paragraphs before the last sentence "This is the last time we will respond outside of the court process." (Do i include this last sentence too?)

Also out of curiosity is there a reason that I need to ask for 30 days further time for debt advice? I have already got the SAR email back so what am I delaying exactly? 

Coupon-mad

Up to you about the 30 day hold.  Most people want to delay the court claim, particularly because otherwise it'll arrive this Summer when you might be abroad or busy with family.  You don't have to delay it but that's why people do: to maintain control over the timeline to suit them better.

Remove this stuff - and can you show us what it looks like without?  We could do with an LBC response to signpost people to look at and yours could be the one!

Your client will also be fully aware that they failed to meet the requirements for hirer liability and we raised this at appeal.  A limited company cannot have been the driver, and given the location and facts, the driver was not at the site in a work-related capacity nor acting on our behalf.   There is no liability possible under the POFA 2012 nor under the law of agency, so spare us your usual (predictable and tired) template reply throwing in CPS v AJH Films and stop wasting our time.

There is no cause of action against this company and should your client proceed with a court claim we well seek full costs due to your client's unreasonable conduct.  Our Director's time would be charged at £xxx per hour for taking us away from our normal business.

Luffy135

Does receiving a LBC mean that it will 100% go to court? I've seen a few posts saying that Parking Solution 24 Ltd rarely take it to court. 

My draft post to Gladstones would look something like the below. Please let me know if I need to make any changes. 

To Gladstones Solicitors

Ref quote : XXXX

I have sent your client a SAR and I am also seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017

Also update your system with the following address for service and delete any other addresses on your system
XXXX

Regarding the "Estimated Fixed Solicitor's Costs" I'm sure you are more than aware but the max legal costs for a small claim of this size is £50. I'm unsure why it's £80 on the Letter Before Claim you have sent.

Further, the Government has banned the false 'debt recovery costs' noting that these were never actually incurred because the 'private parking DRAs' were operating free of charge for the parking industry, until the 'fixed late fee' scam was stopped this February.

In his Ministerial Foreword, DLUHC's Neil O-Brien talks of "aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists":  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

Under 'Escalation of costs' the statutory Code states: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

Whilst the Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

Moreover, it is my position that any parking roboclaim legal firm which now issues a claim enhanced by the false 'debt recovery' costs - despite knowing that the DLUHC has banned them and declared this element to amount to 'extortion' - cannot possibly be acting in good faith.

As such, if you do now proceed to issue a claim enhanced by the (known to be false)  £70 'fees', I will report you to the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority for breach of the STaRs: failing to act with 'honesty & integrity' or in a way which upholds public trust and confidence:

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/

This is the last time we will respond outside of the court process. 

Kind Regards
XXXX

Coupon-mad

Not 'delete'.  Erase. It's pedantic we know, but we use the word from your GDPR right to rectification = erase.

That's a great response, and no, not all LBC cases proceed. They talk to their client and put some in the 'too difficult/costly to bother' pile!

I would add here:

Regarding the "Estimated Fixed Solicitor's Costs" I'm sure you are more than aware but the max legal costs for a small claim of this size is £50. I'm unsure why it's £80 on the Letter Before Claim you have sent and I see this is a template used hundreds, if not thousands of times recently, so it appears to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to exaggerate the costs in two ways, and thus intimidate and mislead the public into rushing to pay you in fear.

Luffy135

Thanks for the clarification on the court claim, fingers crossed they don't bother. Surely with the number of people on here emailing with pretty much identical responses they know not to proceed as you say 99% of the time they will lose. Also in my case the estimated total is £245 - 30 (solicitor costs) - 70 (banned debt charge) brings it down to a measly £145. Not even worth their time but I assume they are incompetent so who knows. 

I also like the additional sentences you added, very aggressive! 

Final Draft:

To Gladstones Solicitors

Ref quote : XXXX

I have sent your client a SAR and I am also seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017

Also update your system with the following address for service and erase any other addresses on your system
XXXX

Regarding the "Estimated Fixed Solicitor's Costs" I'm sure you are more than aware but the max legal costs for a small claim of this size is £50. I'm unsure why it's £80 on the Letter Before Claim you have sent and I see this is a template used hundreds, if not thousands of times recently, so it appears to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to exaggerate the costs in two ways, and thus intimidate and mislead the public into rushing to pay you in fear.

Further, the Government has banned the false 'debt recovery costs' noting that these were never actually incurred because the 'private parking DRAs' were operating free of charge for the parking industry, until the 'fixed late fee' scam was stopped this February.

In his Ministerial Foreword, DLUHC's Neil O-Brien talks of "aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists":  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

Under 'Escalation of costs' the statutory Code states: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

Whilst the Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

Moreover, it is my position that any parking roboclaim legal firm which now issues a claim enhanced by the false 'debt recovery' costs - despite knowing that the DLUHC has banned them and declared this element to amount to 'extortion' - cannot possibly be acting in good faith.

As such, if you do now proceed to issue a claim enhanced by the (known to be false)  £70 'fees', I will report you to the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority for breach of the STaRs: failing to act with 'honesty & integrity' or in a way which upholds public trust and confidence:

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/

This is the last time we will respond outside of the court process. 

Kind Regards
XXXX

Coupon-mad

Surely with the number of people on here emailing with pretty much identical responses they know not to proceed as you say 99% of the time they will lose. 

Yep, that's the idea of our templates and they do have that effect, at appeal, LBC and court defence stage.

The very recognisable MSE forum templates are certainly a heads up to any rent-a-legal and PPC that this case might have to go on the bottom of the pile. Just as you planned!

One roboclaim firm (BW Legal) has even created responses that quote MSE and try to blame the person for taking online advice.  They hate us that much.  They even published an article here, which slags off me, lamilad and bargepole of this MSE parish, and IMHO effectively - and the BSI agreed  - outed me as being on the Govt Steering Group (and we'd all signed NDAs and no roboclaim firm was in the group...go figure):

https://www.bwlegal.co.uk/news/bw-legal-successfully-appeals-strike-out-orders-on-claims-incorporating-contractual-debt-recovery-costs-for-the-private-parking-industry/

Don't worry about that 'win' they crow about BTW.  The victim was a clueless cherry-picked defendant who had no defence and was a fudge of a decision anyway - not much use to the PPCs.  Such rubbish has now been overridden by the Government, if you like.

Luffy135

That's great to hear, I'm saddened for the people who just get scared and just pay these scammers... 

They really went in on you 3... And they even had the cheek to mention the "adding debt recovery costs" as if they have grounds to stand on when it's now banned... 

Coupon-mad

Yep but it wasn't banned till this year.  That was them crowing back in 2020!

Anyway the consumer voice was heard and the fake costs deemed 'extortion', in a final decision published in Feb 2022 from the Government - thank God.  Hope it was something I did - or we did collectively - because in 2021 they had this entirely wrong in the Public Consultation at the time.

Safe to say some of us threw the kitchen sink at it - and were heard.

1505grandad

"Kind Regards
XXXX"

Salutation should "Dear Sirs" and ending "Yours faithfully"  -  this is business correspondence and they are trying to scam you.