Gladstones LBC help please!!

hartynoll · 12 January 2018 at 3:18PM

Hi Guru's

First of all, I have read through the Newbie's thread and googled for a few hours but I am not 100% sure what action to take next so please accept my apologies if you feel that you guys are repeating yourselves.

First of all, I parked on an unfinished housing site in July 2017, along with about 30 other parents who had been asked to attend a meeting for the kick off of the local rugby elite u16s squad.

When I returned to my car, I along with most of the others, had PCNs from Millennium on our windscreens. I must say, as others have posted, the signage was tiny and I didn't notice them when driving in.

I sent them an email on 6th July 2017, which I copied from the NEWBIE thread stating that the signs did not adhere to the large lettering etc etc and requested a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

ON 21 July, I had a response from MPG and suprise surprise, I did not get the charge cancelled but neither did I get a POPLA code. They referred me to the IAS, which I can see from here is a waste of time.

I subsequently had 3 DRP letters, followed by 2 Zenith letters which I have ignored but kept.

This morning I had a letter from Gladstones Solicitors with a 'Letter Before Claim' heading. Please note that the reference begins with '1' and it asks me to pay the solicitors directly, rather than a DRP.

I understand that I must now respond to the solicitors, but the examples I have found on here have suggested that MPG or Gladstones provide me with all evidence etc, which they kind of already did in the response to my initial letter.

Also, there was some regulation change in October 2017, but as the incident was prior to that, should the regulation still need to be followed?

Thank you for any advice guys, these things really get me down and affect me.

I also find it strange that the solicitors have only asked for the same amount £160 as MPG did, with none of the usual admin fee or markup that I would have expected

The_Deep · 12 January 2018 at 3:30PM

You say that there were about 30 of you parked there. Are you all in touch with each other? How many of you have received this Glsdstone nonsense? Does the letter comply with the revised CPRs?

hartynoll · 12 January 2018 at 3:39PM

Hi Deep

I'm afraid I only know 1 of them and I believe they paid up right away - fools!

I'll have to get back to you on the revised CPRs after researching them

Redx · 12 January 2018 at 4:03PM

any LBC dated on or AFTER 01 oct 21017 has to follow those new protocols, even if it related to an incident 5 years ago

you need to compose an LBC REBUTTAL , but should expect to receive an MCOL from Northampton CCBC in any case, probably later this month

if Millenium were IPC members on the date of this incident , then asking for a popla code was a waste of time as it was never an option, and isnt now either

hartynoll · 20 January 2018 at 8:58PM

Hi All

How does the below sound as a response to the LBC:

"Dear sirs,
any debt to your client is denied as no offer of a contract was ever made to the driver of the vehicle at the time so it stands there was none to breach.

As the pair of bandits Will and John at the IPC claim they have personally vetted all of the signage at the site then you will have no need to inform your client that they are clearly in breach of the ATA CoP on this as they will be aware of that already.

Your client will also be aware that adding unspecified additional charges to the alleged debt is unlawful under both consumer and contract law and Civil Procedure Rules so they wont need telling to explain how they arrived at the figure of £150.

Your client will also know that there is no keeper liability in this matter and I put it to strict proof they show as to who was the driver at the time.

A stupid response citing Elliott v Loake or CPS v AJH films will cut no ice, we all know what judges say about that particular confection.

Unless you WANT your client to lose money pursuing this matter you should advise them to reconsider engaging your services to further their claim as it stands no chance of success and will only end up as another heroic failure for Gladstones solicitors on the Parking Prankster's blog."

Coupon-mad · 20 January 2018 at 9:15PM

It will wind them up and won't stop them. Up to you though.

Maybe not a wise response because it will be in the bundle that the Judge will read. I know it's tempting to be facetious when litigious companies send utterly baseless and meritless LBCCCs (been there done that myself in the past) but it's better to maintain the moral and legal high ground.

hartynoll · 1 March 2018 at 4:18PM

Ok, so I sent off my LBC Rebuttal, and Gladstones have come back with a letter stating that "We believe that our LBC is compliant with the most up to date version of the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Protocol".

They have then enclosed various documents for me to return asking things like:

"I was the driver", "I was not the driver", "I agree to pay the debt", etc and give me 30 days to reply or further legal action will be taken.

I don't want to send all that information to them, why should I?

What shall I do now please?

KeithP · 1 March 2018 at 5:15PM

hartynoll wrote: »

What shall I do now please?

Wait for the claim form from the County Court Business Centre.

While waiting, read up on what to do with it when it comes.

beamerguy · 1 March 2018 at 5:20PM

hartynoll wrote: »

They have then enclosed various documents for me to return asking things like:

"I was the driver", "I was not the driver", "I agree to pay the debt", etc and give me 30 days to reply or further legal action will be taken.

I don't want to send all that information to them, why should I?

What shall I do now please?

Sounds just like Gladstones, incompetent to the core.

As said, just wait for a real claim form, you don't
have to reply to idiotic questions that they are asking

Coupon-mad · 1 March 2018 at 9:33PM

hartynoll wrote: »

Ok, so I sent off my LBC Rebuttal, and Gladstones have come back with a letter stating that "We believe that our LBC is compliant with the most up to date version of the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Protocol".

They have then enclosed various documents for me to return asking things like:

"I was the driver", "I was not the driver", "I agree to pay the debt", etc and give me 30 days to reply or further legal action will be taken.

I don't want to send all that information to them, why should I?

What shall I do now please?

Email them (search the forum for Gladstones email and you will find it).

State that as they already know, you are the registered keeper, and there is not only no lawful presumption in contract law, that a keeper was driving on a particular date (without evidence) but you have no obligation to say who was, whether or not a keeper knows for certain, that burden of evidence and establishing liability, remains with the Claimant.

Given the demands and intimidating letters that have arrived in a deluge - including three Debt Recovery Plus, then two Zenith letters (who you have discovered mislead consumers, not least because they are the same company) - this has been a course of conduct demonstrating harassment, akin to the unwarranted demands in Ferguson v British Gas.

And now Gladstones are sending sheets of paper desperately asking who was driving, when they have no right to demand that name. No registered keeper in their right mind would hand over the driver's details (even if they knew) given this level of intimidation from an industry, their debt collector agents and their 'robo-claim' solicitor whose conflict of interests and connection to the IPC Trade Body and the appeals system itself, was specifically condemned (Gladstones were named and shamed) in Parliament just one month ago. Why would any keeper subject another person to this horrendous sequence of intimidation?

You should read these links and watch the MPs debate in Parliament, to fire you up:

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02b.1149.0

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5787731

Just 4 weeks ago, the private parking industry's little game and 'outrageous scam' (Hansard), has been finally been condemned unanimously by MPs in Parliament in the private parking Code of Practice Bill debate.

Watch it, read it, get it!

Refer to it - they will not like it - and quote the words from the Hansard transcript at Gladstones, in this latest robust email. Say that (should the case go to trial) you will include the transcript of the 2nd February 2018 Parliamentary debate as evidence for the Judge, and will provide evidence of the significant distress caused to the whole family as well as the recipient of these horrendously intrusive and unjustified demands, should this matter proceed to court. Add that you will pursue your costs on the indemnity basis, due to the unreasonable conduct and vexatious claim against a keeper with no proper evidence, no contract, and no similarity with the Beavis case to fall back on to excuse the punitive and predatory 'parking charge', now inflated with imaginary sums (such as fanciful debt collection costs, never actually incurred from the no-collection, no fee firms) that have no basis in law.

hartynoll · 13 April 2018 at 10:40AM

Ok so yesterday I receieved a claim form from County Court Business Centre asking for me to reply either accepting the debt/denying etc. and I intend to fill in the defence part of the form.

I have just realised that I may have made a mistake initially. I stated that I am the registered keeper of the car, but in fact it is my wife's company car but I am a named driver.
Will this go against me at any point if it goes to court etc?

Thanks

Gladstones LBC help please!!

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free