Gladstones LBC - query re. Gladstones text messages.

thestormyburrito

Hi all, 

I have 5 parking charge notices relating to June 2023 from CPM UK Car Park Management, issued over consecutive days, for parking in my allocated space at my block of flats for failing to display a permit. 

I received a LBC a few weeks ago in respect to one of the charges, and have drafted the response as detailed in the Newbies section and will send that off in due course when close to the 30 days time window. 

My question however relates to Gladstones texting me. On 1 March 2024 I received a generic message that notes 'further to our letter...' and requesting I pay the £170. The reference number on the text message is identical to the one on the LBC. I am obviously ignoring the text as I am sending my LBC reply.  

However, today I received another text from Gladstones, identical in nature to the first one, that states I owe £510, however, with a different reference number. I am certain I have only received one LBC from Gladstones, but this text message implies that there has been another LBC sent, as it has a different ref. no on. Given the charge is £510, I am also inferring that they are implying I did not reply to an initial letter hence the higher amount. 

For clarity, this vehicle has only been registered to my current address and all parking charge notices, debt recovery plus letters and initial Gladstones letter have arrived safely. 

My question - should I contact Gladstones to understand what this £510 relates to and whether they are claiming to have sent me a letter with regards to it, or ignore it and just continue with my response to the actual LBC I did receive a few weeks ago?

Thanks. 

nopcns

You could inform Gladstones that you do not accept communications via text and you will be blocking their number. Ideally, you should only accept communications by email. Of course you can accept by snail mail but that is terrible these days.

Do Gladstones AND the PPC have your current address for service? If there is a remote chance that they have an old address on file, you must immediately instruct the DPOs of both Gladstones and the PPC to rectify your data and update their records with your current address for service and they must erase your old address. The highlighted words are there for a reason so please use them.

Coupon-mad

I would attach a screenshot of the text about the £510 one and in the same LBC response ask them to explain.

Ask them how many letters they have sent to your old address and to ERASE that address immediately from all files they are processing about you as a data subject (involving any client, any PCN refs) including the unknown £510 case and to explain why these cases have not been consolidated.

As only one LBC has been received, you require their reply to attach copies of ALL LBCs sent to your old address (name that address) and to confirming will not be used for service of ANY court claim.

BikingBud

I read the post:

For clarity, this vehicle has only been registered to my current address and all parking charge notices, debt recovery plus letters and initial Gladstones letter have arrived safely. 

As indicating the vehicle has not been registered any where else other than the current address, hence the OP's concern that they may have sent other claims, the different reference on the second text, or be inflating the invoice.

Is there an aggregation factor involved 3*£170 = £510.

And if you are expecting 5 claims then they may invoice for £850

I feel that currently there is too little information.

I would not be content receiving these demands via text messages, where do they get your number? Can DVLA store and release this? Is there something here for GDPR personal data breach?

Does calling an organisation on a mobile phone give them any right to send you an SMS via that number? I can only recall the relevant tick boxes you tend to get nowadays that seek your approval to contact you for marketing and other various purposes via SMS/Email/mail.

Nellymoser

Completely agree with @BikingBud regarding demands via text messages and the questions raised. It's just not the type of practice I'd expect from a legitimate professional company.

Coupon-mad

I would not be content receiving these demands via text messages, where do they get your number? Can DVLA store and release this? Is there something here for GDPR personal data breach?

No, they did a soft trace; got the number from a Credit Ref Agency which is OK.

The DVLA don't hand out phone numbers.

thestormyburrito

Hi, 

Just by way of an update - I have yet to receive any correspondence to my response to the LBC using the standard template, sent on 22 March 2024 via email. 

However, I have now received another LBC, dated 18th April 2024, which relates to one of the original 5 parking notices I received. 

In my template response to the LBC on 22 March 2024, I said that all correspondence should be sent via email going forward and requested that all claims be consolidated. 

My question is whether I should now respond to this letter separately, referencing my original response to the LBC, or whether I should ignore it given I've already said that I will only respond to correspondence via email and that I wanted all tickets consolidated?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Reply and remind them.  They need a bit of help to join dots...

thestormyburrito

I have received a response from Gladstones, 4 months following my response to the LBC using the template. 

I have copied and pasted (redacting where required) their response. I'd be grateful for advise on whether I need to acknowledge this message or simply wait for the claim form. The answers provided to the questions in the template around VAT etc have not been answered in full.  

As suggested, I asked them to consolidate the 3 claims, but they've simply said they can't because I have 3 files open with them (!) - so I have received the below email 3 times.

Thanks in advance. 

Good Afternoon,

We acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence, and apologise for the delay. The contents of which have been noted and our response below.  

We write regarding the outstanding parking charge you hold on our files. 

Please note, you have three files with us, and they cannot be consolidated into a single file.

By way of background, this matter relates to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") issued by our Client to the vehicle with registration xxxxx.

The PCN was issued at our Clients Site xxxxx London (Patrol) for the following reason: no permit.

Please refer to the attached document for your reference.  

Your correspondence has been duly acknowledged, however, your vehicle was parked in a manner that contravenes the terms and conditions for the use of the private land on which it was photographed. 

These terms and conditions are clearly stipulated throughout the area and upon review, we are confident that the PCN was correctly issued, in line with these signs. 

The advertised contractual terms state 'all vehicles must hold a valid UK CPM e permit or clearly display a valid UK CPM permit in the windscreen at all times'. This is clearly outlined by the signage and the onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms. 

As payment was not forthcoming within the relevant time frame, the contract between yourself and our Client was breached.

Further costs have since been incurred as a direct result of the breach in facilitating recovery of the outstanding debt. 

As the charge remained unpaid, our Firm were instructed to seek recovery and £70.00 has been added as mentioned in the Formal Demand.  

The charge sought is an industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy our Client's legitimate interest. 

With that being said, our Client remains satisfied that the charge was issued correctly and £170.00 remains outstanding.

You can make payment via the following methods: 

----

You must include your reference  xxxxx when making payment.  

If you fail to do so, we may be unable to allocate your payment. This may result in further costs being incurred, for which you will be liable. 

In the absence of payment by 20/08/2024, our Client may elect to issue proceedings without further notice. 

Should it become necessary to issue legal proceedings, we suggest you follow the steps on the claim form upon receipt of the same.  

It is at this juncture we remind you of your right to access legal advice if you are unsure of the process.  

Coupon-mad

Dear Sirs,

Your ref: xxxxxxxx

You say:

"Please note, you have three files with us, and they cannot be consolidated into a single file."

In response to that drivel, I say:

Please note you have verged into unreasonable conduct now.

I suggest you follow the steps in the PAP for Debt claims, the Civil Procedure Rules and read up on relevant case law.

It is at this juncture that I remind you of your right to access real legal advice (you know, from a solicitor) if you are unsure of the process.  

Cause of Action estoppel

As a purported firm of solicitors, there must be someone within Gladstones who will be aware that detaching (or allowing to remain detached) elements of alleged debt - or series of alleged debts - and issuing separate LBCs and/or claims, each which rely upon essentially duplicate particulars and facts, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.

The courts may estop subsequent claim(s) where the cause of action is substantially the same as another filed by the same claimant.  Should you or your client file more than one claim, I will apply for the later action to be struck out, with my full costs being borne by your notorious client.

Not aware of the case law? Ignorance is no excuse but for any rookie/aspiring paralegal, here you go:

In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”

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''.

There has been no reasonable diligence exhibited in this case. If your client intends to eventually furnish me with a proper Letter before Claim, then - after they have taken stock, noted my valid reasons for dispute and addressed them if your client believes they can - you must send just one compliant LBC (a single one for all PCNs).

Or how about just discontinuing and moving on to other low hanging fruit victims that you and your ilk seek?

This is plain gobbledegook:

"The charge sought is an industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy our Client's legitimate interest."

Questions to answer, if the case is pursued:

- who keeps that 'debt recovery/admin fee money when victims pay - you or your clients?

- on what basis do you think you can add it three times, for failed debt collection?

- are you paying VAT to HMRC for your debt recovery fee? It's not part of the PCN, so VAT applies (don't insult my intelligence by trying to pretend otherwise). Is it already included in the extortionate fee; i.e. are you making consumers pay the VAT element?  Yes or no?

Answer within 30 days or cease and desist.

yours faithfully,

thestormyburrito

I have received a response to the above email back in July. As always. I'm grateful for and would appreciate any follow up advice on what, if anything, I should reply with. Response from Gladstones: 

Good Morning,

Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in responding.

We are not prepared to respond to your correspondence on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. Any failure to respond expressly to a paragraph of, or point raised in, the correspondence should not be treated as acceptance of the same.

As previously stated at this stage (pre-litigation) the files will not be consolidated. We will not repeat ourselves again regarding this.

The Amount Due/ Debt includes £70.00 claimed by our Client for the time/resources spent facilitating the recovery of the unpaid parking charge notice(s) pursuant to its ATA’s Code of Practice and the Terms and Conditions of the Contract, which was entered into upon the driver of the vehicle entering the Relevant Land. The amount is a pre-determined and nominal contribution to our Client’s losses as a direct result of your non-payment. VAT is not applicable as the parking charge notice which was issued to you is a contractual charge.

The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy our client's legitimate interest. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of £100 and our client's charges are within this level.  
The decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator's loss.    
We refer you to the IPC code of practice Part E Schedule 5. This confirms the following:  
‘Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/or other documentation. Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £70 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated.’ 
Motorists can park on the site in accordance with the terms and conditions on the sign, without incurring a charge but to park without incurring a charge they may need to display a permit; purchase a pay and display ticket; become an authorised user, it is whatever the sign states. If a motorists wishes to park ‘as they please’ within reason, they can do so but pay a charge for this ‘privilege’, the charge is set out on the signs and by a motorist parking otherwise than in accordance with the signs they accept the charge at the point of parking and a valid contract is formed. The charge is due within 28 days of being incurred, if the charge remains unpaid after this date the contract the motorist entered into is breached and a debt is owed to our Client, they are then entitled to damages that have occurred as a result of the breach.

Our Client remains satisfied the charges were issued correctly and we invite you to make payment of the outstanding balance, in full, within 7 days of this email.

Payment can be made via bank transfer to the account detailed as follows:

Gladstones Solicitors Ltd

Barclays Bank

Account Number: 33028712

Sort Code: 20-24-09

Reference:

104294.120xxx - £170.00

104294.127xxx - £510.00

104294.133xxx - £170.00

Alternatively, you can make payment online or via the automated payment line on 0333 0230 049 quoting your reference.

You must include your reference when making payment. If you fail to do so, we may be unable to allocate your payment. This may result in further costs being incurred, for which you will be liable.

Should full payment not be forthcoming within the time frame specified, we are instructed to issue legal proceedings to recover the outstanding balance in full. Should it become necessary to issue legal proceedings, we suggest you follow the steps on the Claim Form upon receipt of the same.

Kind Regards.