Gladstones/Minster Baywatch - Letter Before Claim

mossmachine

Hi,

First post here, but sadly not the first PCN I’ve had to deal with from these scandalous firms. Thanks all in advance, I just need a cross check on my understanding here before I submit a response please-just in case I’m not correct.

I am the registered keeper.

Short version: Postal PCN from Minster Baywatch (MB) to RK received for an alleged overstay in Teeside Park Stockton on 5th January 2024. Date issued 23rd January. I believe this to be outside the 14 day period for keeper liability (POFA section 9 para 5). Apart from that the PCN looked POFA compliant. I can post a redacted version if needed.

I (the RK) responded on their portal stating no keeper liability under POFA, driver will not be named.

MB decided to ignore the appeal, and to be honest I don’t think I even fully read their response as it was pointless.

I decided not to go to POPLA as quite simply I have bigger things going on in my life than dealing with these people and writing a huge essay as required. I live 180 miles away from this car park and getting pictures of signage etc didn’t seem to be worth the hassle-I didn’t think they were that stupid to pursue it any further given the circumstances. A couple of the usual "debt collection" letters arrived and were ignored.

Beginning 24th May I started to get text messages from Gladstones, stating that “further to our letter” I owe £155. At this point no letter had been received and so were ignored. On Friday 31st May a Letter Before Claim arrived, which was dated 17th May 2024, so the 30 days to respond was ticking from 17th May.

So, assuming that I am correct in my understanding of POFA 2012 re: keeper liability, I intend to follow the approach on this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80421536/#Comment_80421536

I’ll email Gladstones using wording similar to what’s on the thread above. Should I avoid their “portal”? Possibly a complaint to BPA also? I’ll also let them know that should they continue, then when they lose, I will be pursuing for my significant costs-I am self employed and I’m not prepared to lose a days earnings dealing with these people in court.

I could try appealing to the landowner and the shops that the driver spent money in, but (again, assuming I am correct in my POFA understanding), would they really be that stupid to continue to pursue this? 

Thanks again to all you wonderful people!

Mossmachine.

LDast

mossmachine said:

Short version: Postal PCN from Minster Baywatch (MB) to RK received for an alleged overstay in Teeside Park Stockton on 5th January 2024. Date issued 23rd January. I believe this to be outside the 14 day period for keeper liability (POFA section 9 para 5). Apart from that the PCN looked POFA compliant. I can post a redacted version if needed.

I (the RK) responded on their portal stating no keeper liability under POFA, driver will not be named.

Why do you believe that? Without either telling us or showing us the NtK, we cannot say whether you are correct or not. What you may need to understand is that the actual day you physically receive the NtK is irrelevant unless you can provide proof.

You need to count the days from the date of the alleged breach of contract and the date the NtK was issued or sent. You allow two working days from the date of issue or it was sent as the date it was "deemed" as given to the keeper. So, if the number of days from the date of the alleged breach to the date of issue or sent plus two working days is equal to more than 14, then it has not complied with the requirements of PoFA to hold the keeper liable.

Irrespective of the above, you are way too late to try and appeal this. If you have received a letter of claim, then there is the perfect example of how to respond in the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread.

Of course, you can continue with Plan A until a claim is filed.

mossmachine

Thanks LDast, appreciate it, and I can see my wording above is ambiguous, sorry for that. I was referring to the date of the alleged contravention not the date it was physically received.

To clarify:

Date of alleged contravention: 05/01/2024
Date of issue: 23/01/2024

NTK is below:

Gr1pr

So it fails to comply with POFA 2012 , so would have been an easy win on appeal based on no keeper liability 

They are continuing to pursue as if you were the driver by issuing a letter of claim, LoC

Plan A continues to be your best option here, a landowner cancellation ASAP 

Reply with an email, not using the portal 

If course they are stupid enough to pursue this, they all do , these companies collectively issue tens of thousands of court claims every year 

mossmachine

Thanks both. Driver hasn't been named so they have nowhere to go with this. It just annoys me having to spend my time (and your time) on all this nonsense!

I won't consume anyone else's time on this, I just needed some more eyes on it just in case I was relying on something that had no substance.

So plan A and the response as suggested (which I've already read multiple times). 

I'll update here if/when either the claim or cancellation happens.

Mossmachine.

Gr1pr

If you were not the driver then POFA means that YOU are not liable, even if it goes to a hearing 

But 

If you were the driver. ( Don't tell us. ) Then yes they would have somewhere to go with this claim, usually by the lack of detail in the defence plus any cross examination in court 

mossmachine

Gr1pr said:

If you were not the driver then POFA means that YOU are not liable, even if it goes to a hearing 

But 

If you were the driver. ( Don't tell us. ) Then yes they would have somewhere to go with this claim, usually by the lack of detail in the defence plus any cross examination in court 

Understood, and matches what I already thought.

LDast

The "unknown" driver and the "known" keeper are two separate entities in civil law. The "known" keeper can't be inferred nor assumed to be the "unknown" driver.

As this is now likely to result in a county court claim, it is very important to see the wording the claimant or their solicitor are using in their correspondence and in the eventual PoC themselves. The Template Defence will cover all the other aspects and they will either discontinue or face a spanking in court if they cannot prove who was driving.

It is irrelevant whether the keeper was or was not the driver. There is no legal obligation for the keeper to answer a question if they were or they weren't driving, even in the highly unlikely event the judge asked. The judge will make their decision based on facts alone.

The fact is that the Claimant cannot prove that the keeper was driving whether they were or they weren't. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove their claim, not on the Defendant to disprove it.

Because they filed to comply with the requirements of PoFA, they cannot simply transfer the liability for the charge from the "unknown" driver to the "known" keeper.

mossmachine

Hi,

I'm still waiting for responses on "Plan A", but in the meantime I'm about to submit the email to Gladstones based on the template in Post #2 of the Newbies thread (deadline is 16th June). I'm stating that their client failed to comply with POFA and now cannot hold me the Keeper responsible, along with other key points from the suggestions on here.

But, should I at this point include a screenshot of the NTK that contains the alleged date of contravention and date of issue (as above), or should I save that for my defence should it become necessary?

Thanks all.

Mossmachine.

Coupon-mad

Not needed for either. Gladstones can easily check the NTK from their client's files.