Small Claims Court Gladstones Solicitors - Do I settle?

wontbackdown25

Yes I have read all of the various threads, but worried I don't have a case.  Do I settle? 

My father parked on a Euro Parking Services site in 2023 and got a PCN through the post from CCTV which he ignored and all correspondence since.  All details and protocol (signage is correct and clear, letters sent within contracted time) seemed to have been followed correctly by them. He only told me when they had started small claims court action so could not follow the forum advice.

We did not settle at mediation so next step is court. The court claim is £260.27 (£100 PCN, £60 contractual costs and £15 interest, £35 court fee and £50 legal representatives costs.  Will there be further costs if it goes to court?  

My only things that may help; he is a blue badge holder, he had an issue with his post being delivered as the postman was scared of dogs so the Royal Mail formally got in touch to advise of the issue, I am just checking the dates of this.  He parked in a regular place for ages and didn't realise it had been taken over by a parking company.  

Any loopholes or area I should be focusing on such as duplication of costs which can't claim in Small Claims?  Thanks in advance

Gr1pr

The sum involved should never go up, but a typical loss in court is more like £212, so minus the spurious charges 

Definitely do not settle,  no early payment,  it will be less if he loses   ( you are just his assistant,  nothing more , its not yourcase,  you cannot settle anything )

Le_Kirk

wontbackdown25 said:

He parked in a regular place for ages and didn't realise it had been taken over by a parking company.  

Any loopholes or area I should be focusing on such as duplication of costs which can't claim in Small Claims?  Thanks in advance

Parking companies are supposed to put up signs warning of changes. Check the relevant code of practice for BPA or IPC depending on which PPC it is for how long they are supposed to leave them up.
They cannot charge additional fees such as admin or debt collection so each charge should be £100 plus claim fee, hearing fee and a maximum of £50 legal fees.

LDast

Any claim issued by the incompetent wannabes at Gladrags is bound to be struck out if the advice is followed. I don't think I've ever seen a Gladrags issued claim ever comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

Follow the advice in the Newbies/FAQ thread and use the Chan and Akande cases to lead the judge by the nose and persuade him/her to strike it out.

fisherjim

In 2023 The BPA COP V8 dated January 2020 was still in force and the following clause directly references this situation:

19.10 

Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that
materially affects the motorist then you must make these
terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such
changes impose liability where none previously existed then
you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the
site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.
Best practice would be the installation of additional/
temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site
making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will
ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with
the previous terms become aware of the new ones

Version 9 Dated February 2024 adds that this notice period should be no less that 4 months.

Coupon-mad

Show us his submitted defence. Verbatim please.

No settling!

Is he ready for WS stage now?

wontbackdown25

Thanks all for your useful comments and time.  I will start looking into these suggestions.  Do I start having these arguments with Gladstones now "Without Prejudice" or get it ready for my court evidence and not enter into dialogue with Gladstones?

wontbackdown25

Coupon-mad said:

Show us his submitted defence. Verbatim please.

No settling!

Is he ready for WS stage now?

Submitted claim as follows and taken from this site.  My research shows me that point 3) is actually wrong and you there is an obligation to name a driver.  

1)    It is admitted that the defendant, XXX (a retired pensioner and blue badge holder), residing at XXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2)    It is denied that any costs are owed, and any debt is denied in its entirety.

3)    No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked
the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no
presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor
does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I
choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my
right.

4)    This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure
sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors
in their claim. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I
have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste'
claim. This has caused significant distress and has denied me a
fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

5)    As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that
I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as
may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's
case.

6)    This claim merely states: “£100 for the PCN, £60 contractual costs….and £50 Legal representative’s costs”. No details have been provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'contractual costs' and 'legal representative costs'.

7)    The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action and have the lowest 1-star Trust Pilot Review score from 234 reviews. The Claimants solicitors were fined £30,000 for “misconduct” and for failing to have “adequate systems, processes and procedures in place.” (Law Gazette13/1/2022)

8)    I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible
minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

9)     I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track
as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

10)  It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

11) The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis.

12) It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply numbers made up out of thin air and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in the small claims court. The POFA (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

13) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

14) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give
rise to any apparent claim in law''.

 

 

 

 

1505grandad

"My father parked on a Euro Parking Services site in 2023......................"

Just confirming EPS are IPC AoS members. 

Coupon-mad

My research shows me that point 3) is actually wrong and you there is an obligation to name a driver.  

Your research is wrong!

wontbackdown25

Coupon-mad said:

My research shows me that point 3) is actually wrong and you there is an obligation to name a driver.  

Your research is wrong!

I hope you are right / please advise why I am wrong as that was my key defence.  My research shows the below and the POFA changed the requirement to notify who the driver was as per the below. 

3.1 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 makes a number of changes to the law related to parking. It bans private sector wheel-clamping and vehicle removal where there is no lawful authority to do so, and, as a balance to that, provides landholders with extra powers to manage parking on their land once the ban comes into force. It does this by allowing landholders, in certain circumstances, to hold the registered keeper of a vehicle liable for unpaid parking charges if the registered keeper refuses or is unable to name the driver at the time the parking charge was incurred.