Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 27th Jun 17, 11:25 AM
    • 42Posts
    • 15Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    LBC received from Gladstones for UKCPM PPC
    • #1
    • 27th Jun 17, 11:25 AM
    LBC received from Gladstones for UKCPM PPC 27th Jun 17 at 11:25 AM
    Hello all


    As instructed in the newbies thread here is my new thread for my case. After initial appeal, which of course lost, and numerous debt collector letters I now have a second letter from Gladstone's which is an LBC.


    I have this template below from Gan on Pepipoo which I am prepared to send. I can provide any more detail you wonderful folks need in order to advise me. Worthy of note in the first instance that this was a postal PPC, no windscreen ticket, on a vehicle that I was hiring from Volkswagen for the weekend.


    Thanks
    Ben


    Dear Sir

    Ref : ****

    I have received your Letter Before Claim dated 1st September 2016.

    I deny any debt to Park Direct UK Ltd

    The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me as keeper.

    You also cannot presume that I possess all the documents referred to in your letter.
    Please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle.

    When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass
    Please confirm that your client's contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court.
    I also require an explanation for the additional 50 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.

    When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response
    It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.

    I look forward to your response

    Yours Faithfully
Page 3
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 28th Feb 18, 4:55 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    Thanks Keith, have deleted.


    Shall I re-post with my name and all reference numbers obscured?


    Also I will get my username changed.
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 28th Feb 18, 5:08 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    How do I arrange a username change?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 28th Feb 18, 5:26 PM
    • 7,148 Posts
    • 6,605 Thanks
    KeithP
    Easiest way might be to hit the report button on one of your own posts and ask the MSE Forum Team to help with that.
    .
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 2nd Mar 18, 2:24 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    Afternoon


    witness statements for claimant and defendant attached. Grateful of help of what I have left to do. countdown to Court a week today.


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/gc0kojnrohtoq1m/Claimants%20witness%20statement%20v2.pdf?dl=0


    https://www.dropbox.com/s/7hr60606ta43tu5/Witness%20statement%20v2%20defendant.pdf?dl=0
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Mar 18, 1:36 AM
    • 57,361 Posts
    • 70,957 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bump for comments on Saturday, if anyone has time to take a look for the OP.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 3rd Mar 18, 10:46 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    The OP?...
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 3rd Mar 18, 10:52 AM
    • 7,322 Posts
    • 9,757 Thanks
    beamerguy
    The OP?...
    Originally posted by BillyMorgan009
    Billy, you are the OP = 'original poster'
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 3rd Mar 18, 11:25 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    Aha! Yes indeed.
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 3rd Mar 18, 5:12 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    Bump for comments on Saturday, if anyone has time to take a look for the OP.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Any comments welcomed. :-)


    links to both claimant and defendant witness statement via dropbox above.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 4th Mar 18, 1:05 AM
    • 57,361 Posts
    • 70,957 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Bump for comments on Sunday, if anyone has time to take a look for the OP.

    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 4th Mar 18, 10:51 AM
    • 1,015 Posts
    • 1,953 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Time for the skelly and a bit of legal argument. This document needs to be prepared in a similar way to the witness statement, but summarising the legal issues.

    ************************************************** ************************************************** *************
    The below is not comprehensive and is not intended to replace arguments of your own and/or be definitive. There may be matters relevant to your case that I am not aware of. Use it (or not) at your own discretion!
    ************************************************** ************************************************** **************
    The Court will note that both the Claimant and Defendant Parties rely upon the Supreme Court judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis, but it is important to note that they do so quite differently. The Claimant relies upon the case as a general proposition that parking charges are not penalties and that a contract may be established with the terms of a parking sign. The Defendant relies on the same case to aver that there was no contract of parking and refers the Court to Para 94 of the leading judgment from Lord Neuberger and Lord Sumption:

    The 85 is described in the notice as a parking charge, but no one suggests that
    that label is conclusive. In our view it was not, as a matter of contractual analysis, a
    charge for the right to park, nor was it a charge for the right to overstay the two-hour
    limit. Not only is the 85 payable upon certain breaches which may occur within the
    two-hour free parking period, but there is no fixed period of time for which the
    motorist is permitted to stay after the two hours have expired, for which the 85
    could be regarded as consideration. The licence having been terminated under its
    terms after two hours, the presence of the car would have constituted a trespass from
    that point on. In the circumstances, the 85 can only be regarded as a charge for
    contravening the terms of the contractual licence.


    Put simply, the signage in this case "NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING" never offered any contractual licence to park from the outset. If the Defendant was not a permit holder he trespassed immediately. There are no terms within the signage permitting unauthorised vehicles to remain on the land for any period. There was no contractual agreement to park at all. It is the Defendant's case that the terms of the sign are not a general parking charge that all motorists can agree to pay to park at the site. This is a misinterpretation of the signage and, indeed, the established authority (The Court will note that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] was heard some years after ParkingEye v Somerfield [2001] which the Defendant contends should not be followed).

    It would have been easy to draft a contractual sign that did offer parking in general terms to all motorists, but exempting permit holders from having to pay a fee. The landowner elected not to do so. The signage is, accordingly, a prohibition. There was no contract agreed with the Defendant to park.

    If, which is denied, there is a parking contract under which the Defendant is liable for parking charges to the Claimant and, further he is required to meet additional costs of the Claimant in the event of a loss on an indemnity basis, those charges must be proven. The Claimant has particularised no such losses. The Defendant asserts in the strictest terms that the signage relied upon by the Claimant includes no provision for liquidated damages or notional sums in respect of costs that could (and should) have been provided for by the contract if they are to be recovered. The Court will be invited to exclude entitlement to any such costs.

    The Claimant appears to have led the Court to the Respondent's argument in Vine v London Borough of Waltham and, critically, NOT the ratio of the judgment from Roch LJ that provides as follows:

    To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning. In this case the Recorder might have reached such a conclusion about the appellant's state of knowledge, but he did not do so. The Recorder made a clear finding of fact that the appellant did not see the sign. That finding is not surprising in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space and the appellant's distressed state, the reason why the appellant parked and left her car hurriedly. It was the appellant's evidence that she did not see the sign. There was never any suggestion that the appellant was other than a truthful witness.

    The above (paragraph 19 of the judgment) is quite different from the general presumption that the Claimant invites the Court to make. It is for the Claimant to show that their signage is capable of forming a contract, of sufficient number to be seen, illuminated where the parking occurs at night and clear.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 5th Mar 18, 8:54 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    Thanks Johnersh.

    When do I have to submit this to the court? And to the claimant I presume also?

    With regards to the layout, I just do the statement of truth stuff, sign and date and number the pages like with the initial witness statement?

    Billy
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 5th Mar 18, 12:31 PM
    • 2,454 Posts
    • 3,001 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    A skelly is optional, so no "have to".
    However normally this is submitted 3 days beforehand, ALONGISDE your costs schedule. Always to both other parties - court and C

    As this is merely an argument I dont believe it needs a statement of truth. Numbered para ALWAYS helps you.
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 5th Mar 18, 1:28 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    Nosferatu many thanks. Is there a template for the costs summary?

    Given court date is Friday and I guess I'll have to get the stuff in the post / hand deliver to the court, tomorrow. Do I just title it 'skeleten arguement'?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Mar 18, 1:36 PM
    • 7,148 Posts
    • 6,605 Thanks
    KeithP
    Is there a template for the costs summary?
    Originally posted by BillyMorgan009
    Yes there is, and as you might've guessed it's in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread - towards the bottom of that post.
    .
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 5th Mar 18, 3:03 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    KeithP...i should know better thsn to go asking before checking the newbies thread lol
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 6th Mar 18, 10:41 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    Skelly and costs submitted. What do I need to do before the big day on Friday now?
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 9th Mar 18, 10:45 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    URGENT!

    in the court waiting room now. Claimant's solicitor just showed me a copy of the original PCN which claimant has failed to include in witness bundle. They've only put in the one to the hire company and then the trans of liability docs.

    He wants to admit it. Will I get to refuse and could this be enough to request the claim is struck out?

    Thanks
    Billy
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th Mar 18, 11:21 AM
    • 2,454 Posts
    • 3,001 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    DO NOT accept it from them now
    Object to it being included.
    No it is not enough to get it struck out. WHen you say original PCN, was this a windscreen PCN?
    • BillyMorgan009
    • By BillyMorgan009 9th Mar 18, 1:53 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    BillyMorgan009
    Well....I won! Can't quite believe it! Off for a swift beverage in celebration.

    An interesting observation...as a lay person it was obvious to me how inept Gladstone's really are. The judge didn't have the claimant's trial bundle...this was because they'd emailed it to the court not sent a written copy. The judge was not a happy man about this and I sat quietly whilst he engaged in a few stern words with the claimant's representative. He'd also noted, as did i, on receipt, that pages 3&4 of the claimant's witness statement were scanned badly and bits cut off...again he was not impressed.

    Anyway, pub calls. :-)

    To every single poster on my thread and other contributers to the parking fines forum board I thank you from the bottom of my heart, and my wallet...which save being a few hundred pounds lighter will be inflated by 104.90 costs awarded to me :-D
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,217Posts Today

8,439Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin