How do I know it's a real LBC?

Mumtomany

Hi,
I've read the newbies thread and have followed everything so far.  I have now received a letter from Gladstones with Letter before claim on it - dated 1st Sep but arrived yesterday.

In the newbies thread it says a 'real letter before claim' and not just a LBC, how do I know the difference and do I act on the one I have received?

I overstayed in a Premier Park parking location, due to having to treat my disabled child's condition.  I have complained and explained all of this through the appeal but it doesn't appear to have made much difference. This happened August last year, the total is £170 and the letter says if the client issues court proceedings it will rise to an estimated £285 and I need to respond by 1st October.

Starting to wobble a bit now!
Any help appreciated.

ab2000

If it has a 30 day limit to respond on it then it is real.

Follow the advice on the newbies thread.

request a SAR from the PPC data protection officer. Then send an email to Gladstones requesting a 30 day hold as you are seeking debt advice.

Others will no doubt be along who have a far better understanding than me.

Fruitcake

Plan A is always to complain to the landowner and your MP, otherwise do exactly as advised above.

You will need to include non-photo proof of ID with the SAR to the DPO. Send it asap using the advice in the NEWBIES.

Tell the solicitors that whilst you deny the debt you are seeking debt advice therefore require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per court pre-action protocol. You should do this near the end of the month but without missing the 30 days to respond given on the LBC.

Read the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES. This is a step by step guide from LBC to the court hearing.

In addition, have a look at the Equality Act 2010 with regards to companies having to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. This should be mentioned in your complaints, and in your response to the solicitors. Allowing extra time to attend to your disabled child is a reasonable adjustment, and now the claimant is aware of this, to continue will constitute indirect discrimination and a breach of the EA 2010.

Where did the alleged event occur? It may have cropped up here before.

Umkomaas

In the newbies thread it says a 'real letter before claim' and not just a LBC

What do you think LBC is short for?  We often use initialisations and acronyms to save enough time to provide answers to the hundreds of questions we are asked each and every day. 

patient_dream

Yes as ab2000 says above. But also ask them for their legal authority to add £70.
They have no legal authority it's just a scam invented by the BPA and copied by the Gladstones / IPC scam set up

We wait with baited breath for Gladstones to explain this, they never have and never will because it's a complete fake .... such is the sad life of Gladstones who are not the smartest page in the book ?  Judges know this and the problem Gladstones have is convincing a court that their scam is real .... Judges will not be mugged

No need to wobble, you are here now with all the help to scupper the scam

Regarding the £285, court fees £85 which includes solicitors costs

£170 + £85 = is £255.   maybe they are trying for interest which judges normally do not allow.   Judges mostrly will deduct the fake £70  so max amount should be £185
HOWEVER that's if you lost and your story tells us you would win and then you can claim around £95 in costs

Please do as said, then wait. With the extra 30 days added which they must do, you will not hear until at least November.    If they are stupid enough to continue with their fake and when a disabled child is involved, no doubt yet another spanking in court awaits them

Mumtomany

patient_dream said:

Yes as ab2000 says above. But also ask them for their legal authority to add £70.
They have no legal authority it's just a scam invented by the BPA and copied by the Gladstones / IPC scam set up

We wait with baited breath for Gladstones to explain this, they never have and never will because it's a complete fake .... such is the sad life of Gladstones who are not the smartest page in the book ?  Judges know this and the problem Gladstones have is convincing a court that their scam is real .... Judges will not be mugged

No need to wobble, you are here now with all the help to scupper the scam

Regarding the £285, court fees £85 which includes solicitors costs

£170 + £85 = is £255.   maybe they are trying for interest which judges normally do not allow.   Judges mostrly will deduct the fake £70  so max amount should be £185
HOWEVER that's if you lost and your story tells us you would win and then you can claim around £95 in costs

Please do as said, then wait. With the extra 30 days added which they must do, you will not hear until at least November.    If they are stupid enough to continue with their fake and when a disabled child is involved, no doubt yet another spanking in court awaits them

Thank you. I advised it was a disabled child during my complaint to the landowner and at POPLA. This whole thing is causing me so much stress. 

Mumtomany

Umkomaas said:

In the newbies thread it says a 'real letter before claim' and not just a LBC

What do you think LBC is short for?  We often use initialisations and acronyms to save enough time to provide answers to the hundreds of questions we are asked each and every day. 

I assume LBC is letter before claim, but I must confess I didn’t read the acronyms. Sorry if I made a mistake not my intention to waste anyone’s time. 

Mumtomany

Fruitcake said:

Plan A is always to complain to the landowner and your MP, otherwise do exactly as advised above.

You will need to include non-photo proof of ID with the SAR to the DPO. Send it asap using the advice in the NEWBIES.

Tell the solicitors that whilst you deny the debt you are seeking debt advice therefore require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per court pre-action protocol. You should do this near the end of the month but without missing the 30 days to respond given on the LBC.

Read the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES. This is a step by step guide from LBC to the court hearing.

In addition, have a look at the Equality Act 2010 with regards to companies having to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. This should be mentioned in your complaints, and in your response to the solicitors. Allowing extra time to attend to your disabled child is a reasonable adjustment, and now the claimant is aware of this, to continue will constitute indirect discrimination and a breach of the EA 2010.

Where did the alleged event occur? It may have cropped up here before.

Thank you. Do I make a further complaint to the landowner? I did that originally. Also made POPLA aware that my child is disabled and reasonable adjustments should have been made, the response said that they could not expect an anticipatory duty in this circumstance. 

Happened at Silver Blades ice rink Gillingham, all the signage refers to Planet Ice which is the old trading name I believe. 

Coupon-mad

the response said that they could not expect an anticipatory duty in this circumstance. 

Whyever not? Was that from POPLA or the PPC?

Avoiding INdirect discrimination (against the disabled population at large, as opposed to known individuals) is an anticipatory duty, under the law.

Fruitcake

Mumtomany said:

Fruitcake said:

Plan A is always to complain to the landowner and your MP, otherwise do exactly as advised above.

You will need to include non-photo proof of ID with the SAR to the DPO. Send it asap using the advice in the NEWBIES.

Tell the solicitors that whilst you deny the debt you are seeking debt advice therefore require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per court pre-action protocol. You should do this near the end of the month but without missing the 30 days to respond given on the LBC.

Read the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES. This is a step by step guide from LBC to the court hearing.

In addition, have a look at the Equality Act 2010 with regards to companies having to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. This should be mentioned in your complaints, and in your response to the solicitors. Allowing extra time to attend to your disabled child is a reasonable adjustment, and now the claimant is aware of this, to continue will constitute indirect discrimination and a breach of the EA 2010.

Where did the alleged event occur? It may have cropped up here before.

Thank you. Do I make a further complaint to the landowner? I did that originally. Also made POPLA aware that my child is disabled and reasonable adjustments should have been made, the response said that they could not expect an anticipatory duty in this circumstance. 

Happened at Silver Blades ice rink Gillingham, all the signage refers to Planet Ice which is the old trading name I believe. 

As C-m says, the EA 2010 covers anticipatory duty, and not doing so is indirect discrimination.
To proceed with the charge after they have been made aware of a person's disability becomes direct discrimination.

It's like building steps then saying, "We didn't expect people with wheelchairs to turn up".

Some people with certain disabilities, having protected characteristics in accordance with the EA 2010, require extra time, so allowances must be made for this in anticipation.

This definitely needs to be raised with the landowner and your MP.

I suggest you also contact the Minister of State for Disable Persons about this.

Mumtomany

Coupon-mad said:

the response said that they could not expect an anticipatory duty in this circumstance. 

Whyever not? Was that from POPLA or the PPC?

Avoiding INdirect discrimination (against the disabled population at large, as opposed to known individuals) is an anticipatory duty, under the law.

We do not believe that we have contravened the Equality Act and do not believe that we discriminate against those who our protected by this Act. The Act defines discrimination at Paragraph 13 as:
“A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.” 
At the time the Parking Charge Notice was issued we could not have reasonably been expected to know of your circumstances and we cannot be said to have treated you unfairly at the point we issued the Parking Charge. Please note, following this appeal denial response, we will cease to respond to all further unfounded allegations of our having discriminated against yourself.

This was from the PPC.