Two NPM/Gladstones Cases - WON AT COURT

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 am drafting my Defence for the second claim regarding 4 PCNs:

3. The Defendant was at College Street, NN1 2QP, car park. The Defendant is a courier delivery driver and had deliveries to unload and drop off to nearby customers on multiple occasions in 2021. The customers were located at the dessert shop Kaspa’s, 27 The Drapery, NN1 2ET and the flats above Kaspa’s. After completing the deliveries, The Defendant returned to the vehicle within a few minutes and exited the car park. At no point when parking did The Defendant see any clear, prominent signs showing the contractual arrangements near the bay used. The Defendant doubts the Claimant's ticketer allowed a sufficient consideration period. There was also no signage easily visible between the bay used. The Defendant, therefore, does not agree that any form of contractual relationship was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant that would render the Claimant's charges valid. 

I included para on Henderson v Henderson: 

In Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 the court noted the following:

(i) When a matter becomes subject to litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case;
(ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to re-open the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence, or error;
(iii) this bar applies to all matters, both those on which the Court determined in the original litigation and those which would have been advanced if the party in question had exercised ''reasonable diligence''.

By the Claimant's negligence or by intent, filing two claims (ClaimNoXXXX and ClaimNoXXXXX), allowing them to continue to two separate hearings and choosing not to pay the appropriate court fee to apply for leave to consolidate them and amend the particulars into one claim, permits of no reasonable explanation. The Court and myself will have to make preparations for two separate court hearings in the coming months, causing unnecessary costs in time and money, specifically in terms of duplicating the paperwork, intimidation and distress for myself.

I also included the para on Jopson v Homeguard too

Are there any improvements I can make?

Coupon-mad

That's good.  Remove this:

"The Defendant admits that there were no parking spaces available in the nearby area on those occasions, The Defendant was left with no choice as it is not permitted to park outside Kaspa’s on The Drapery owing to the fact that the road has a no motorised vehicles sign except for only buses and taxis."

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

That's good.  Remove this:

"The Defendant admits that there were no parking spaces available in the nearby area on those occasions, The Defendant was left with no choice as it is not permitted to park outside Kaspa’s on The Drapery owing to the fact that the road has a no motorised vehicles sign except for only buses and taxis."

Ok will do, thanks!
I will submit this defence very soon. 

AdamBliss

Ok I submitted my Defence for the claim regarding a single PCN.

Now I just submitted my Defence for the claim regarding multiple PCNs.

AdamBliss

Just recieved an email back from NPM regarding SAR:

It is important that motorists understand that parking on private land is not an automatic right. Landowners can manage their land in such a way that protects their rights. This ranges from inviting parking for a tariff or free of charge parking to provide easy parking access to help a retailer attract customers. This also extends to a landowner’s right to prohibit parking. All car parking is provided at a cost to the landowner. These costs can include the maintenance of the land, along with the cost of equipment and technology to monitor the land. Landowners may also need to pay for insurance and business rates.  There are also likely to be significant associated costs when vehicles park on land for which they are not suited. This can result in damage to kerbs, lawns, or garden areas.

Please find attached all information which we hold on our system, regarding your personal data, this comprises of parking charge notice number: NPM50230, NPM15215, NPM15045, NPM14653, NPM11338 and NPM11055 only.

The information is provided is:

PCN Information

PCN Letters

Photos of Vehicle

All the information which we hold has been provided to you today. The personal data that we hold on our system consists of your full name, your address, your vehicle registration number and photographs of your vehicle. Your email is on file as this was your preferred way to contact NPM and has been voluntary provided by yourself. NPM do not hold voice recordings. we hold no other data about you other than what you have received today. No appeal has ever been received.

 

AdamBliss

I checked all the 6 PCN pictures and NTKs.

None of the ticketers waited 10 minutes before issuing PCN. 

On 2 ocassions I was literally leaving within 5 minutes and therefore had no PCN on windscreen yet they took pictures of me driving off... 

The rest I had PCN on my windscreen.
The NTKs were all posted/dated 2+ weeks or more since contravention date, some even within months, some of them were saying I missed the 2 weeks discount period and now owe £100...

Also on the 2 ocassions I was pictured leaving within 5 minutes, the times stated on the NTK was increased (contravention period from and to), eventho by that time I left the site...

This is actually so ridiculous! to think they are demanding almost £1,500 for such minor incidents... disgusting.

Pure madness. I really hope more is done about these private parking companies in the future!

Coupon-mad

That is good and gives you ammo for your later witness statement.

I really hope more is done about these private parking companies in the future!

It already is. Please join us for the final Govt Public Consultation in July.

AdamBliss

Coupon-mad said:

That is good and gives you ammo for your later witness statement.

I really hope more is done about these private parking companies in the future!

It already is. Please join us for the final Govt Public Consultation in July.

Coupon-mad said:

That is good and gives you ammo for your later witness statement.

I really hope more is done about these private parking companies in the future!

It already is. Please join us for the final Govt Public Consultation in July.

Nice, thank you

AdamBliss

I sent both defences to CCBC on 18th May

I got an automated email back for both of them as receipt of email. 

Next day I got an email back from one of their employees confirming they have processed one of the defence (relating to 1 PCN). 
I emailed them back asking about the second defence (4 PCNs) and whether they have processed it yet.

Haven't heard back from them yet.

AdamBliss

Got an email back from Gladstones after I told them to erase my previous address and update to new one:

We refer to your request regarding a request for the erasure of your previous address.

Unfortunately, we cannot process your request because as it now forms an integral part of our file and we can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing of your data, which override the interests, rights and freedoms of you as an individual.

We have however taken the opportunity to update your address on our system and confirm all correspondence will be sent to your current residential address.

That legitimate interest being that we are acting on behalf of our client for the recovery of monies relating to an unpaid Parking Charge(s), number(s) XXXXXXX & XXXXXX & XXXXXX, XXXXXXX and XXXXXX. Claim(s) have now been issued before the County Court, under Claim Numbers XXXXXX and XXXXXX and we will now adhere to the Civil Procedure Rules during the course of litigation and the Court’s directions.

To process your data is necessary and lawful, as it is required in furtherance of our client’s instructions, and we act for them on their rights and obligations for the recovery of such monies.

If you are not satisfied with our decision, you have a right to complain to the Supervisory Authority. At this stage you should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)...

Not sure if I should complain to the ICO