ES Parking/Gladstone - assistance please

maralions

Hello, 

Firstly, thank you for all of your guidance and help. I have already successfully appealed a number of tickets both for myself and others based on your content in thread #2.

I am seeking help now on behalf of my father, who has received a notice from Gladstone solicitors on behalf of E S Parking. He ignored the initial letter, and then asked me to help with the second. 

I have read the stickies, plus searched the forum and read various posts, but due to a disability I am struggling to understand and organise all of the information without being overwhelmed. I am unclear as to what my next step should be. Please accept my apologies if I have missed a step or anything obvious; I am really struggling with the various different bodies/stages of appeal/timeframes. 

This is regarding his van, which parked in an area marked on the road as Loading. This is what the van was doing - their photos show the back doors of the van open. Their photos were taken over a 3 minute period. On the opposite side of the road, there is a small sign saying no stopping. This is the location: for reference, the red vehicle is where the van was stopped, and you can juss see the sign on the lamppost on the right on the opposite side of the road: 
https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4811754,-2.2530046,3a,47y,220.29h,78.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgLn16AiPVsam_zRYuo-jIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I initially wrote to them using the template essentially stating that they could not assume the identitiy of the driver, and asking for further proof. They have replied:

"For the avoidance of doubt, Parking Charge Notice xxx was incurred on xxx at the location Spinningfield's Estate, Manchester.

The signs displayed at the site clearly states,'No stopping at all', if you choose to park outside of these terms, you accept the charge set out on the sign. The signs form the contract between yourself and our Client.

We attach our Client's photographic evidence which shows your vehicle bearing registration number xxx parked/stopped in an area where stopping is prohibited. By parking in such a manner the driver accepted the charges set out on the signs.

Payment of the charge has not been forthcoming within the relevant time-frame and as such the contract between yourself and our Client has now been breached. Our Client has incurred further costs as a direct result of the breach in taking steps to recover the outstanding debt."

I am considering replying the following to them, to include a screenshot of the above image location showing the loading area and the location of the sign:

"I am writing in response to the below.

Again: there will be no admissions as to who was driving, and no assumptions can be drawn. You cannot simply guess or assume as to the identity of the driver. The driver has not been identified and your client has not used the POFA so has failed to present a prima facie case regarding liability. Furthermore, again: you must include a close-up actual photograph of the sign that you contend was at the location on the material date, including evidence that it was properly illuminated and visible on the date and time in question. The sign you have provided an image of is on a different location of the road and not within the marked loading area, which is clearly marked on the road as ‘loading’. Furthermore, the sign you have provided an image of includes small-print that is so small that requires a vehicle to stop to read it, therefore offering no contract that a driver can accept, as by stopping they are already in breach of the contract.

For clarity, I have provided a photograph of the sign displayed in a different location to the vehicle, and the clearly labelled loading area within which the vehicle was located, for your information.

Please not that we will not tolerate predatory behaviour and this will be fully appealed through the IPC, with full supporting evidence from POFA content and IPA codes of practice, plus supporting arguments from case transcripts, should you continue."

Would someone be able to advise me as to whether this is appropriate and the correct course of action? Again, apologies if I am not taking the correct steps at the correct time. 

Thanks again for all the help. 

Galloglass

Did you mean to have your VRM in full view on a site that is read by the PPCs?

Coupon-mad

You can't get any help via the IPC and if Gladstones are involved this is not an appeal, so remove this and just tell them at the end, to cease and desist:

"Please not that we will not tolerate predatory behaviour and this will be fully appealed through the IPC, with full supporting evidence from POFA content and IPA codes of practice, plus supporting arguments from case transcripts, should you continue."

Mouse007

maralions said:

This is regarding his van, which parked in an area marked on the road as Loading. This is what the van was doing - their photos show the back doors of the van open. Their photos were taken over a 3 minute period. On the opposite side of the road, there is a small sign saying no stopping.

It also says you can load/unload drop off/pick for 15 minutes in lay bye

KeithP

From GSV it is clear the road markings show that stopping for deliveries is allowed at the place where the vehicle was stopped...

[click the image to go to GSV]


You mention a sign across the road.
That sign reinforces the point that loading is allowed...
[click the image to go to GSV]

Note that the second 'box' reads...

LOADING & UNLOADING AND DROP
OFF / PICKUP FOR A MAXIMUM OF
15 MINUTES IN LAY-BYS ONLY

As an aside... anyone notice how tiny the print in the fourth box on that sign is?
That's the box with the exclamation mark beside it. Presumably that exclamation mark is to draw the attention of the reader to something important - maybe even the price of disobeying the instructions.


Of course some might argue that that only applies on that side of the road.
But look around... there is a similar sign on the layby side of the road but unfortunately it isn't readable in GSV...
[click the image to go to GSV]


Now the caveat...
Those GSV images are over three years old.
OP, are you able to visit the site and get up to date images?

maralions

Galloglass said:

Did you mean to have your VRM in full view on a site that is read by the PPCs?

Thanks, I've edited

Mouse007 said:

maralions said:

This is regarding his van, which parked in an area marked on the road as Loading. This is what the van was doing - their photos show the back doors of the van open. Their photos were taken over a 3 minute period. On the opposite side of the road, there is a small sign saying no stopping.

It also says you can load/unload drop off/pick for 15 minutes in lay bye

And @KeithP

"Now the caveat...
Those GSV images are over three years old.
OP, are you able to visit the site and get up to date images?"

Hmm. You're right, those signs aren't up to date. Here's the new sign:

https://ibb.co/bFf8Pyw

https://ibb.co/7k0ZJpY

But it also looks like the writing is still there on the floor. I think I will see if I can get someone to take a photo. Apparently someone confirmed that you could load for 15 minutes, and Dad does say that he saw he could load (although I can't 100% confirm this). 

I'm unsure as to my next steps. Would you recommend getting a photo, or would you recommend replying?

Thanks all

maralions

Just had a look at a photo they sent (left), and compared it with the Google screenshot (right): https://ibb.co/FnScDCL If you move around on the Google image (https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4809622,-2.2534679,3a,15y,58.4h,85.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw7CiB-A9mP-afExMrjUg5Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) you can see that this says Loading/Pick Up/Drop Off only. They look the same to me!

Among the photos they sent is also a photo of someone opening the side doors of the van and the back doors of the van open, clearly showing it was being used for loading. 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

You can't get any help via the IPC and if Gladstones are involved this is not an appeal, so remove this and just tell them at the end, to cease and desist:

"Please not that we will not tolerate predatory behaviour and this will be fully appealed through the IPC, with full supporting evidence from POFA content and IPA codes of practice, plus supporting arguments from case transcripts, should you continue."

Your planned response to Gladstones is good, as long as you remove the above empty threat.

Instead, attach your evidence that the van was unloading in an unloading area and add something like this at the end of your email:

Your client had, and still has, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to continue processing my data. In accordance with Principles 1,2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles they were not permitted to either obtain, process or keep it.

Further, the quantum of the alleged debt is in breach of Schedule 2 of the CRA and the misleading wording of this bombardment of demands pays no regard to the PAP for Debt Claims.

Further and in the alternative, it is unfair business practice for a parking firm to state that they are an IPC AOS member, yet fail to comply with the relevant Code of Practice which the Supreme Court took to be effectively 'regulatory'.  This is not merely a case of a lack of professionalism.

The conduct of your client in spuriously pretending that a driver cannot unload in a marked loading area has amounted to an unfair commercial practice which is prohibited under regulation 3 of the CPTURs.  It is also a misleading action within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).

It is pertinent to adduce the authorities of:

(i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html

where Sedley LJ held: 

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong. 

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.''

and

(ii) Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

where HHJ Chambers QC concluded at [83]:

''Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. [...] It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt. Whatever the strength of the suggestion that the courts should only be a last resort, I can see no legitimate comparison between a series of measured warnings which, after full opportunity for response, lead to legal proceedings and what took place. {...there} ...can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the Claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel. I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should countenanced.''

(iii) Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 which confirms that pecuniary loss is not necessary for compensation to be payable and that pure distress is enough.

By reason of the matters aforesaid I have been obliged to deal with unjustified and aggressive correspondence from your clients and their agents which has relentlessly arrived at my family home.  In all the premises, the conduct of your client and their agents amounts to harassment under section 1 of the PFHA. 

As a Litigant in Person I have suffered substantial damage and distress, causing sleepless nights, headaches and extreme worry.  I consider myself a robust person but I am only human and will attest to the severe effect on my peace of mind, on oath if required by the Judge, when I appear in court in person, if your client persists.

I will file a counterclaim based on the above legal position, should I receive a court claim. Your clients must take stock of their position and cease and desist immediately.

Yours faithfully,

Mouse007

Well the new signs are good, they shout NO STOPING AT ALL.

The signs displayed at the site clearly states,'No stopping at all', if you choose to park outside of these terms, you accept the charge set out on the sign. The signs form the contract between yourself and our Client.

Which idiot wrote that? the PPC or the solicitors?

For a contract there must be an offer. That sign is forbidding, it is making no offer. In which case there is no contract and they have no claim.

With a contract you have a 2 way trade, I do or give in return for you doing or giving. Usually involes one party paying cash.

They won't win this in Court if you defend correctly.

Coupon-mad

Here's a case whereI suggested a similar robust response (only to DCB Legal):
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6411690/dcb-legal-letter-of-claim-multiple-pcns/p1

I hear it has made them at least put it 'on hold'.

I've also done a similar reply for a friend once (ages ago) and after if was put 'on hold' they never came back.

The aim is to make your case too difficult.

There is no downside, because even if they do try a claim, you can show the Judge that you responded fully and they were unco-operative.  The letter sets out your position and should shut Gladstones up.

maralions

Thank you both. I have sent my amended letter plus your additions, and attached the images I've put here.

I honestly don't understand - how can you have a sign up saying no stopping, plus additional signage on the road saying that loading is allowed? Which one trumps the other?

I have noted that there was a sign on the other side of the street, plus one on the pavement further down, but none on that specific loading bay.