IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Gladstones - Letter Before Claim (PCM)

Options
12467

Comments

  • subzero1988
    subzero1988 Posts: 94 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    edited 12 October 2018 at 8:05PM
    Options
    Also just to post the POC -

    The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXXX (the ‘Vehicle’) incurred the parking charge(s) on xx/xx/xxxx for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Great West Quarter
    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle.
    AND THE CLAIMAINT CLAIMS
    £16 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £10.42 pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day.
  • KeithP
    KeithP Posts: 37,792 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    subzero1988 wrote: »
    4th october is the issue date...
    With a Claim Issue Date of 4th October, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until until 4pm on Tuesday 6th November 2018 to file your Defence.

    Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

    1) Print your Defence.
    2) Sign it and date it.
    3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
  • System
    System Posts: 178,100 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Earlier you said about not getting the claim form from Northampton but you have this one.

    Why not send a Subject Access Request to Northampton and see if it turns up only one (the most recent) posting.
  • subzero1988
    subzero1988 Posts: 94 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    So I matched up the refernce numbers that I had with the LBC's i received, 2 of them.

    The LBC that i replied to in this thread, matches up with the claim that im now defending.

    My mistake before was that the second LBC, i just assumed they sent the same one out again, thats why that went straight to cout because I didnt reply to it. And just completely unfortunate that for some reason i didnt get anything through from the court allowing me to defend, i just received the CCJ.

    Is this what you were referring to? Sorry was just a bit unsure
  • System
    System Posts: 178,100 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    My mistake before was that the second LBC, i just assumed they sent the same one out again, thats why that went straight to cout because I didnt reply to it. And just completely unfortunate that for some reason i didnt get anything through from the court allowing me to defend, i just received the CC

    Yes. Lots of people get confused with the court process, which is why they churn these claims out. Easy money.
  • subzero1988
    subzero1988 Posts: 94 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Yeah and it worked with me, caught me out completely.

    This is what Gladstones sent to me in reply to my LBC:

    (www)dropbox.com/sh/635wx5qoava5xid/AAAR5zzr418ZRY9szwrxVPEVa?dl=0
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    edited 15 October 2018 at 11:07AM
    Options
    subzero1988 wrote: »
    Yeah and it worked with me, caught me out completely.

    This is what Gladstones sent to me in reply to my LBC:

    (www)dropbox.com/sh/635wx5qoava5xid/AAAR5zzr418ZRY9szwrxVPEVa?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/635wx5qoava5xid/AAAR5zzr418ZRY9szwrxVPEVa?dl=0

    I note Gladstones refer to the Beavis case ?
    This is a con trick giving you the false impression that ALL parking
    tickets relate to Beavis which of course they do not.
    All that happened with the supreme court is that they said the £85
    charge was legitimate .... hence it gave a licence for the £85 charge.

    Plus the Supreme Court gave licence for PPC's to clog up county
    county courts around England and Wales. How stupid is that.

    So, unless you are claiming that the charge was unfair, clearly
    Gladstones are trying to con you

    Then there is the £60 which stems from a fake Debt Collector charge

    The charge is £100 as clearly shown on the PPC ticket
    This is another try on con
    ====================================
    The Daily Mail are asking people for their stories
    editor@thisismoney.co.uk
    They already know about the Gladstones/IPC/IAS scam
    PLUS .... Sir Greg Knight MP also knows of the scam
    ====================================
  • System
    System Posts: 178,100 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Interesting .... 3 different sets of terms. Two landowners/contracts. Which are they trying to apply and how?

    It will come down to the specifics of the bay / terms for that bay.

    They'll need a good rep.
  • Umkomaas
    Umkomaas Posts: 41,442 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Options
    All that happened with the supreme court is that they said the [STRIKE]£100[/STRIKE]
    charge was legitimate .... hence it gave a licence for the [STRIKE]£100[/STRIKE] charge.
    £85.

    £100 never came into the equation - even though POPLA in all their decisions linked to 'extravagant and unconscionable' think that 'While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court'.

    An appalling extrapolation, who are POPLA to extend the parameters of a decision of The Supreme Court?
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .

    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Umkomaas wrote: »
    £85.

    £100 never came into the equation - even though POPLA in all their decisions linked to 'extravagant and unconscionable' think that 'While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court'.

    An appalling extrapolation, who are POPLA to extend the parameters of a decision of The Supreme Court?

    True I have edited that
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.9K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.2K Life & Family
  • 248.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards