Two NPM/Gladstones Cases - WON AT COURT

Coupon-mad

Are both claims and all PCNs about the same private land site?

Why so many PCNs - reason for issue? - and why were you parking there?  Shopping? Lived if worked there?

Which solicitor are they using?

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Are both claims and all PCNs about the same private land site?

Why so many PCNs - reason for issue? - and why were you parking there?  Shopping? Lived if worked there?

Which solicitor are they using?

The claim with just 1 PCN is for a NPM site outside a Snooker Club, can't remember exactly why I parked there and if I remember correctly it was a windscreen PCN and subsequently a PCN through the post.

The claim that includes 4 PCNs are all for same NPM College Street site which is in the town centre where I work as a delivery driver.
There were no free parking spaces available in those times, went to pick up delivery from a restaurant came back to (at least a couple of them) with a PCN on my windscreen. The others I got a letter sent home with pictures of my car with no PCN on windscreen. 

Both claims are using same solicitors:
Gladstones, Solicitors Limited, Warrington, WA1 1PP

Coupon-mad

OK.  I would swiftly defend the single one this week, using the Template Defence with para 2 saying you were driving, and as paragraph 3 state what the location is, and that you do not recall the parking event and certainly did not accept a contract to pay £100 or more, but provide your best guess what it is about and that you were probably delivering something (unloading not parking) and doubt the Claimant's predatory ticketer allowed a sufficient consideration period.

Get that one done, so it moves on first.  Ideally you want that single one to progress quicker.

Then wait until the week of the deadline given by @KeithP to defend the 4 ticket case.  Do a similar defence but add in a paragraph about Henderson v Henderson (search the forum & copy a suitable defence point about cause of action estoppel).

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

OK.  I would swiftly defend the single one this week, using the Template Defence with para 2 saying you were driving, and as paragraph 3 state what the location is, and that you do not recall the parking event and certainly did not accept a contract to pay £100 or more, but provide your best guess what it is about and that you were probably delivering something (unloading not parking) and doubt the Claimant's predatory ticketer allowed a sufficient consideration period.

Get that one done, so it moves on first.  Ideally you want that single one to progress quicker.

Then wait until the week of the deadline given by @KeithP to defend the 4 ticket case.  Do a similar defence but add in a paragraph about Henderson v Henderson (search the forum & copy a suitable defence point about cause of action estoppel).

I received another letter before claim by Gladstones dated: 4th May 2023, it is regarding a PCN on 1st July 2022.
Location is the same as the Claim Letter I got regarding 1 PCN. (Snooker Club car park).
I believe I was dropping off deliveries to a customer at the snooker club and another on next street, since everywhere else was double yellow lines/permit holders only.

They are asking for £170 and threatening with court proceedings which they say could increase it to £285. 

I requested a SAR from the PPC (NPM).
Also sent an email to Gladstones disputing/denying any debt and letting them know I have sent a SAR to their client.
I also noted how they are not fully compliant with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

Regarding the Defence for the 2 Claims.
I am drafting them both now.

 

Coupon-mad

Send Gladstones the usual stuff found on other LBC stage threads when you search the parking forum for Dear Sirs Henderson estoppel

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Send Gladstones the usual stuff found on other LBC stage threads when you search the parking forum for Dear Sirs Henderson estoppel

Will do.

Here is my defence draft for the 1 PCN Claim. (Snooker club):



IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXX

Between

National Parking Management Limited

(Claimant)

- and -

XXXXXXXXXX

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and the driver in question but liability is denied.

3. The Defendant was parked at the snooker club car park on Great Russell Street, Northampton, NN1 3BU. 

The Defendant is a courier delivery driver and had deliveries to drop off to a customer at the snooker club as well as customers on Great Russell Street. After completing the deliveries, the Defendant arrived back to his car within a few minutes and left the site. At no point when parking did the Defendant see any clear, prominent signs showing the contractual arrangements near the bay used. There was also no signage easily visible between the bay used and snooker club. The Defendant therefore does not agree that any form of contractual relationship was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant that would render the Claimants charges valid.

...

4 - 27 I copied the rest from sticky notes, with statement of truth, signed and dated.

Are there any improvements I can make?

I am sure I was only parked there around 10 - 20 minutes. Not sure if the NPM patrol waited the 10 minutes grace period and if they still have the recordings/data. Is it worth mentioning any of this?

Also here is the car park in question. I was parked on the right side near the entrance (next to where blue car is parked in this image).

There are no signs at entrance. No signs on poles. And you can barely see the signs right at the back. 

Just so you know this isn't ANPR fitted car park. It is those NPM patrols that come and take pics of cars and you get a NTK sent through the post within a week or two. 

KeithP

Is that a real Claim Number you have just published?
If so, it uniquely identifies your parking event.

And in a similar vein... is Adam Bliss your real name?

AdamBliss

KeithP said:

Is that a real Claim Number you have just published?
If so, it uniquely identifies your parking event.

And in a similar vein... is Adam Bliss your real name?

I edited the claim number it is not real, the name is just made up. 

Coupon-mad

Remove this repetition from para 2:

"but liability is denied."

You could also add a paragraph about Jopson v HomeGuard, a parking case decided on appeal so it is persuasive that unloading is not 'parking'.  Search the forum, it's in hundreds of defences here.

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this repetition from para 2:

"but liability is denied."

You could also add a paragraph about Jopson v HomeGuard, a parking case decided on appeal so it is persuasive that unloading is not 'parking'.  Search the forum, it's in hundreds of defences here.

Appreciate the feedback!
Will update it and send it soon