Letter before claim

Coupon-mad

"my own fault as I rushed due to being called for my appointment"

You will NOT be saying that at the hearing and I jolly well hope you didn't type that in your WS! Come on, in reality you've no idea why the screen & system didn't exempt your car.

More to the point: if Gladstones haven't sent a WS in time, that is the first thing you say to the judge because they breached the hearing Order.

And you add that the case should be dismissed for that reason, with costs awarded to you for attendance today.

Should be done in 5 minutes.

SecretIdentityFool

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82125770#Comment_82125770

Not admitting that tomorrow.

Got it all ready to start with that for the judge along with the para 3 defence about the Chan and Akande cases regarding the particulars asking for it to be struck out so hopefully the Judge is on my side 🤞

MrJenkinsEsq

From the claim form and the Gladstones letter, some thoughts on things you might like to ask questions on tomorrow if you need to, or to answer if asked. Speak through the Judge not to their representative. I don't know what's in their WS if you've received one so this is a bit speculative. In addition to @Coupon-mad's point to challenge no WS if they've not sent one at the first opportunity:

It is the surgery's car park, not Premier's. A patient parks there because the surgery invites them to. The surgery's own website says patients park free for their appointment. So the question is what Premier actually offered the driver that the driver did not already have from the surgery, and who the contract is supposed to be with. The claim form just says 'the Contract' and never says whose.

They have not said what was done wrong. The claim form says the driver 'parked in breach of the terms and conditions' and stops there. It does not say whether that means staying too long, not registering the car, or something else. A claimant is supposed to say what the breach was. That includes both what the term was on the sign and what the driver did/did not do to breach it.

Their own letter says the contract was made 'upon the driver entering' the car park. Fine, but then only what could be read at the entrance counts. The surgery says the registration rule is on computers inside the building. You cannot agree to something at the gate that you can only read once you are indoors after you've already parked.

The £70 keeps changing its story. The claim form says it comes from the sign and from the 'PCN terms and conditions'. The solicitors' letter says it comes from the industry code of practice and is a 'contribution to our Client's losses'. Terms on a ticket you get after you have parked cannot be part of the deal you made when you parked. A trade body's code binds the parking company, not the motorist. And the Supreme Court in the Beavis case said the parking charge itself is already set high enough to cover the cost of chasing it. If a court decides the £70 term is unfair, it has to strike it out completely; it is not allowed to knock it down to a smaller number. If it's their losses they need to prove them.

The interest is wrong. They have not said what date it runs from or to, which the rules require. The maths shows they have charged 8% on the whole £170 from the day of parking, so they are charging interest on the £70 'costs' from before any cost could have existed. On the £100 alone from when it fell due it would be about £4.50.

Beavis does not do the job they want. The Beavis car park was a retail park next to a station with a commuter problem, and the charge was justified by keeping spaces turning over for shoppers. This surgery says its scheme is to stop people parking to go into town. A patient is the very person the car park is for.

Also missing from the claim form entirely: the words on the sign, any proof the surgery gave Premier authority, and the original notice to the keeper. If the person representing the company tomorrow just says these things, that is not evidence; evidence is in the bundle or it is not. If their representative says anything that isn't in the bundle politely point it out to the judge at the earliest opportunity.

Hope it goes well!!

SecretIdentityFool

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82127845#Comment_82127845

I’ve not received anything from Gladstones so whatever they bring will be new

SecretIdentityFool

Update from the case:

Gladstone didn’t send any evidence to me OR the court by the deadline and didn’t turn up to the hearing. Seems like they took it to court for a last chance scare tactic to get me to pay.

Judge struck it out and awarded me the maximum £95 for having the day off work so a nice little win and getting my own back on them!

MrJenkinsEsq

Congratulations! 😁

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82131605#Comment_82131605

Yay!

Gladstones keep dropping the ball now.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

😀