Court Claim - Forbidding Parking PCN - 5 years ago

tygrysek

patient_dream said:

Gladstones are taking the p*ss. they have been told many times about the fake add-on of £70

You say that the wording has changed ?   The only wording that is applicable is the day of the ticket.  Both signs you show have small type terms but on neither can I see the words there are contractual costs of £70 ?

This is a fairy tale dream by Gladstones who invented the great IPC/IAS scam.

Who signed the Gladstones claim trying to tell a judge IT IS TRUE ?

And £88 interest ?  Why did National Parking Management not take action sooner ... or is this extortion/penalty money ?
Judges do not normally allow extortion fake claims

Gladstones are not the smartest of legals and the cases they take on, revolve around IPC members like National Parking Management

IE:  you lose the appeal with the PPC, you lose the appeal with IAS, ALONG comes the inventor of the scam.... GLADSTONES Solicitors

Thank you for taking time to read it and your comments. It's very useful indeed. 

Re intrest and waiting so long to raise a claim - would you include that in the defence as well?

In terms of the signage on the day. I don't belive they were adequate. Yes there was a board on the building but that's quite a distance from the road, and how would you know what area it refers to - I.e. the road. 
Also, the wording on the board 'No parking at any time' is not very prominent or bold (ie in comparison with 'Parking charge... ' , and definitely was not easy to read from the road.

Many thanks

tygrysek

B789 said:

Interestingly a very recent case where the defendant lost but the judge threw out the "extra" £70 because they already added on £40 after the original £60 discounted charge to cover their "extra costs".

Needs rewording better to be included in all future defences methinks.

Thank you. Do you happen to have the details which case it was? I will definitely look to include it. 

KeithP

tygrysek said:

Also, the wording on the board 'No parking at any time' is not very prominent or bold (ie in comparison with 'Parking charge... ' ,...

 A sign that says 'No parking at any time' is hardly making an offer to a motorist.
In fact, it is forbidding parking, so how on earth can a motorist agree to park there?

Le_Kirk

tygrysek said:

Thank you for taking time to read it and your comments. It's very useful indeed. 

Re interest and waiting so long to raise a claim - would you include that in the defence as well?

You cannot use that in a defence but you can put it in the witness statement in a section regarding costs!

tygrysek

KeithP said:

tygrysek said:

Also, the wording on the board 'No parking at any time' is not very prominent or bold (ie in comparison with 'Parking charge... ' ,...

 A sign that says 'No parking at any time' is hardly making an offer to a motorist.
In fact, it is forbidding parking, so how on earth can a motorist agree to park there?

Thank you so much. I will need to stress that out in my defence. 

tygrysek

Le_Kirk said:

tygrysek said:

Thank you for taking time to read it and your comments. It's very useful indeed. 

Re interest and waiting so long to raise a claim - would you include that in the defence as well?

You cannot use that in a defence but you can put it in the witness statement in a section regarding costs!

Thank you, that's very helpful. I never had to submit one so will need to learn a lot. 

It's really daunting going against a team of lawyers. But this forum gives some hope!

tygrysek

patient_dream said:

Gladstones are taking the p*ss. they have been told many times about the fake add-on of £70

You say that the wording has changed ?   The only wording that is applicable is the day of the ticket.  Both signs you show have small type terms but on neither can I see the words there are contractual costs of £70 ?

This is a fairy tale dream by Gladstones who invented the great IPC/IAS scam.

Who signed the Gladstones claim trying to tell a judge IT IS TRUE ?

And £88 interest ?  Why did National Parking Management not take action sooner ... or is this extortion/penalty money ?
Judges do not normally allow extortion fake claims

Gladstones are not the smartest of legals and the cases they take on, revolve around IPC members like National Parking Management

IE:  you lose the appeal with the PPC, you lose the appeal with IAS, ALONG comes the inventor of the scam.... GLADSTONES Solicitors

Frances Bennett signed the form. 

Boat_to_Bolivia

tygrysek said:

Le_Kirk said:

tygrysek said:

Thank you for taking time to read it and your comments. It's very useful indeed. 

Re interest and waiting so long to raise a claim - would you include that in the defence as well?

You cannot use that in a defence but you can put it in the witness statement in a section regarding costs!

Thank you, that's very helpful. I never had to submit one so will need to learn a lot. 

It's really daunting going against a team of lawyers. But this forum gives some hope!

You are giving them far more credit and status than they deserve.

The experts on here know far more than any of the solicitors used by these rogue parking companies!   

tygrysek

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

tygrysek said:

Le_Kirk said:

tygrysek said:

Thank you for taking time to read it and your comments. It's very useful indeed. 

Re interest and waiting so long to raise a claim - would you include that in the defence as well?

You cannot use that in a defence but you can put it in the witness statement in a section regarding costs!

Thank you, that's very helpful. I never had to submit one so will need to learn a lot. 

It's really daunting going against a team of lawyers. But this forum gives some hope!

You are giving them far more credit and status than they deserve.

The experts on here know far more than any of the solicitors used by these rogue parking companies!   

That's encouraging! Thank you

B789

tygrysek said:

B789 said:

Interestingly a very recent case where the defendant lost but the judge threw out the "extra" £70 because they already added on £40 after the original £60 discounted charge to cover their "extra costs".

Needs rewording better to be included in all future defences methinks.

Thank you. Do you happen to have the details which case it was? I will definitely look to include it. 

There won't be a "record" of the judgment as it was a small claim. However, it was interesting to hear about the judge's reasoning for disallowing the £70 fake add-on.

It has been suggested that something along the lines of the following be added into the defence:

The Defendant contends that the claimant has unjustifiably added extra costs to the claim in an attempt to cover supposed recovery costs. This assertion is contradicted by the original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued, which clearly stated that the charge was £100, discounted to £60 for early payment. This original pricing structure implies that the £60 amount was intended to cover all their original costs, including any additional expenses or eventualities.

By subsequently increasing the charge to £100, it is evident that the claimant has already factored in any potential extra costs or contingencies. Therefore, it is unreasonable and unjust for them to seek further compensation beyond the initial £100 charge. This sudden increase in the claim amount raises doubts about the claimant's intentions and suggests an unjustified attempt to overstate their recovery costs.