Claim form for car parking charges

Coupon-mad

Yes, add it.

If you saw the PCN you know the reason for issue?

You should be stating whatever it is the PCN says - denying breach - and saying you have no idea what they are talking about and they didn't reply when you sent an email in February showing proof of purchase (Pay and Display ticket).

Hmmm...your P&D ticket doesn't have a typo or only a partial numberplate on it, does it?

baz417

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, add it.

If you saw the PCN you know the reason for issue?

You should be stating whatever it is the PCN says - denying breach - and saying you have no idea what they are talking about and they didn't reply when you sent an email in February showing proof of purchase (Pay and Display ticket).

Hmmm...your P&D ticket doesn't have a typo or only a partial numberplate on it, does it?

I never saw their pcn, I sent an email only after receiving the letter from small claim from County Court thinking that they might drop the case after knowing that i bought the ticket and seeing the proof of purchase but never received any response. Does it make any send to mentioned that in my WS?  

My P&D does not show the numberplate , I can't see anywhere on the ticket.

Coupon-mad

Yes add what I suggested to your WS unless their bundle arrives in time for you to pull it apart!  We love doing that.

baz417

Coupon-mad said:

Yes add what I suggested to your WS unless their bundle arrives in time for you to pull it apart!  We love doing that.

Thanks will do, hopefully their bundle arrives in time so we can defend appropriately. They have given me enough stress unnecessarily, thanks to you and other member who have been very supportive otherwise I had no clue how to deal with the process so far. Cheers

baz417

I have checked the Google reviews for this car park and everyone is facing issue of PCN even after paying for the parking ,
just thinking ; is it possible anyway to relate to WS as to illustrate how badly majority of people suffering from this scam by sharing their experience. below is the screenshot example , their are too many suffering from it:

Coupon-mad

Yes you can attach reviews as an exhibit.

baz417

Coupon-mad said:

Yes you can attach reviews as an exhibit.

Oh great! Thanks very much.

Coupon-mad

I agree you can't.  So don't copy that bit.

ALSO TO REMIND EVERYONE, this is the sum total of your defence:

"I have bought the ticket on the day in question so the company have no rightful claim against me. The copy of the ticket can be provided as a evidence. 
Please note that I have the original car parking ticket  at home but could not sent them yesterday as no attachment option was available."

So you can only build on that, plus reference to the CRA 2015 and fairness, and statute law/case law that supports your defence, and the DLUHC analysis.

You can't challenge landowner authority because that wasn't pleaded.

Where you talk about exaggerated claims, add this extra paragraph (needs a number):

- 

Whatever the allegation turns out to be, it must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished).  In addition to the fact that the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated, additionally the interest is inflated in two ways:

(i).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if £160 or £170 was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

(ii). Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. I have discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%)  and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.  I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit.

baz417

Coupon-mad said:

I agree you can't.  So don't copy that bit.

ALSO TO REMIND EVERYONE, this is the sum total of your defence:

"I have bought the ticket on the day in question so the company have no rightful claim against me. The copy of the ticket can be provided as a evidence. 
Please note that I have the original car parking ticket  at home but could not sent them yesterday as no attachment option was available."

So you can only build on that, plus reference to the CRA 2015 and fairness, and statute law/case law that supports your defence, and the DLUHC analysis.

You can't challenge landowner authority because that wasn't pleaded.

Where you talk about exaggerated claims, add this extra paragraph (needs a number):

- 

Whatever the allegation turns out to be, it must be common ground that the terms have been complied with or substantially complied with, and the Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen.  The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (not saved by the ParkingEye v Beavis case, which is fully distinguished).  In addition to the fact that the sum claimed under purported 'contract' is disproportionately exaggerated, additionally the interest is inflated in two ways:

(i).  Interest appears to be miscalculated on the whole enhanced sum from day one as if £160 or £170 was 'overdue' on the day of parking;

(ii). Gladstones have applied the wrong interest rate of 10.25% which they appear to have made up.  The highest rate allowed in civil claims (only at the discretion of courts) is 8%. I have discovered from research that this legal representative roboclaim firm (connected to the IPC trade body) always adds 10.25% interest and are highly likely to be one of the top five 'bulk parking case litigators' shown in the Government's analysis, linked elsewhere in this statement.  Gladstones indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year, all of which have the wrong interest rate (a deplorable 10.25%)  and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims.  Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN.  I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit.

Thanks very much for the information, this is an excellent paragraph which I would not be able to articulate myself, will add to WS.

Please see: below is not part of the defence which I have sent them  :

Please note that I have the original car parking ticket  at home but could not sent them yesterday as no attachment option was available"

Is it something I need to add to WS or...?


Also 
Does Paragraph 33 has any relevance ?  which I tried to articulate myself showing other people experience with the company.

Coupon-mad

You must append the parking ticket receipt as an exhibit, obviously, along with all the other exhibits as seen in recent WS full bundle examples - e.g. v3 posted late in the thread by @aphex007