UK Car Park Management/Gladstones LBC Assistance Needed

PGS94

Hello all,

I am in possession of a Letter Before Claim correspondence relating to a disputed parking charge from September last year. 

I received some help over on a different forum in disputing the charge, my appeal was rejected and we are now at the LBC stage. 

Looking at the newbies thread, I have followed the steps in acknowledging receipt of LBC and disputing the debt, while requesting a SAR from the parking company.

While I wait for this info, it would be useful to determine what I need to do next in terms of a defence.

The original charge was disputed as the signs were forbidding and no contract was formed, citing the relevant cases: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016].

I have included some pictures of the NTK letter, LBC, appeal outcome letter and relevant signs. Please let me know if you need anything further. 

As I’m new, I can’t seem to post links, but to view the photos please join the gaps: https / imgur .com /a/TDZGSMF

PGS94

amended link

https : // imgur .com /a/TDZGSMF

Coupon-mad

https://imgur.com/a/TDZGSMF

Have a read of the Template Defence thread, top of the forum, and read at least a dozen other claim threads here.  See what other people put as their 'facts' paragraph 3.

You'll be well prepared but please don't hang your hat on prohibitive signage.  Not all Judges agree.  

PGS94

Hi @Coupon-mad

Having read through the template defence thread - I have some questions.

The defence template covers a variety of points, upon reading it, I wondered if it's a "delete where appropriate" type template, so not all fields apply? If so, I'm wondering which sections need to be removed. It seems upon reading it, after point/paragraph 14, it branches out into subheadings which suggest these should be used where relevant - am I interpreting this correctly or should all sections be left as is, with only paragraph 2 and 3 being tweaked to cover the facts of my case?

I have adapted paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however it is not known who the driver was at the time of the alleged breach.

3. The vehicle that was registered to the Defendant at the time (“Defendant’s vehicle”) was parked in a parking pay on land belonging to Notting Hill Genesis Group (“The Landowner”), the Driver of the Defendant’s vehicle would have been visiting an address within a residential building that is developed on this land. The Tenant of this address holds a Tenancy Agreement with The Landowner. There is no reference in the Tenancy Agreement that restricts the Tenant or their visitors from parking on The Landowner’s land nor is there any clause in the Tenancy Agreement which states that Tenants or visitors must display a permit. The parking bay in question had been used by Tenant’s and visitors for over six years with no restrictions until suddenly the Claimant’s signage was installed and charges were issued. Further to this, the signage The Claimant is using as evidence of a contract being entered into is of a “forbidding” nature. The signage states “DELIVERY AND CONTRACTOR VEHICLES ONLY” there is no invitation for non-delivery or contractor vehicles to park, no consideration of the offer could have taken place, therefore the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle could not have accepted a contract with the claimant. This is clearly established in PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – in all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and not upheld by the Courts.

Coupon-mad

Add some explanation here, e.g.  

however it is not known who the driver was at the time of the alleged breach. More than one family member has visited that location by car over the years, because a (friend/family member?) lives there are visitors' cars have always been allowed.


Remove the greengrocer's apostrophe in:

" The parking bay in question had been used by tenant's".


You could add a point saying that the signage is so inadequate that it is denied that a contract was agreed by the driver.

All added paragraphs need a number.

No, the template is NOT meant to have anything removed at all.  It is all always relevant to every case.

1505grandad

Typo  -  "..... (“Defendant’s vehicle”) was parked in a parking pay on land belonging to Notting Hill Genesis Group ...."

PGS94

Thanks, have amended as per your suggestions and corrections. I am wondering if perhaps it would be wise to include that the landowner provided no communication to residents about the change of use? I.e. the landlord had not communicated to tenants that they are not allowed to park there - or is it irrelevant as there is still no contract with the driver and PPC?

Coupon-mad

Yes, it makes sense to add that to the end of this additional bit that I suggested:

"however it is not known who the driver was at the time of the alleged breach. More than one family member has visited that location by car over the years, because a (friend/family member?) lives there are visitors' cars have always been allowed."

PGS94

Thanks, will amend it now. I have not made any representations to Gladstones yet, other than to request 30 days while I seek debt advice but deny the alleged debt. I am awaiting the info from the PPC from my DSAR, but just so I know, how detailed do I need to be?

Coupon-mad

You won't be making any representations to Gladstones.  They will file a court claim regardless of whatever you say now, so no need to overthink this stage.