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@.

    • AntrimMark
    • By AntrimMark 28th Jul 17, 5:08 PM
    • 41Posts
    • 41Thanks
    Gladstone LBC
    • #1
    • 28th Jul 17, 5:08 PM
    Gladstone LBC 28th Jul 17 at 5:08 PM
    This is a new thread, not connected to the other 2 I have on the go currently.
    I received the LBC from Gladstones in the link below.

    I don't have a PCN , an NTK or any debt collectors letters.

    I replied as follows:

    Dear Sir/Madam.

    RE: Your letter ref: xxxxxxxxxx

    I have received your Letter Before Claim dated xxxxxxx

    I deny any debt to Gemini Parking Solutions London 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 any additional charge over and above the original parking 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
    They responded as follows. There was nothing else provided, certainly not the evidence they refer to in the last line. Can I please have advice as to how best to respond to their letter.
    Most of this is a direct copy of a WS I have seen recently.
    Thankyou for your correspondence.

    The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the Registered Keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption. To date you have been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver, yet has failed to do so. Our client therefore concludes it more likely than not you were the driver.

    Notwithstanding the above, you are also pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the Act') which states:

    'The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle."

    The relevant Notices were sent in accordance with the Act and you failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings (which is required under the Act (paragraph 5(2)).

    The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sched 4 (para 2) states that; the keeper "means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle Is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper.

    You have given no reasonable explanation as to why you wouldn't have received the post. However, without concession, even if the post wasn't received, this would not impact your liability to pay. The correspondence was sent after you became liable.

    The photographs clearly show the notice affixed to the Vehicle. Terms of the agreement are evident from the sign.
    No photographs, no sign attached

    In any event, the contract was formed at the time of parking; wheter there was a notice on the windscreen does not impact your liability to pay.

    Our client relies on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign, and accepted by the drivers actions as prescribed therein.

    The signs on the Land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which they did, the charges were properly incurred.

    As the contract is between you and our client, our client does have the authority to enforce parking charges. Both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and Parking Eye v Beavis {CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any event, and without concession, our client did have authority from the landowner to operate on the land.

    Please see attached the relevant evidence.
    None attached.

    In the event payment isn't made in the next 14 days from the date of this letter further legal action will be taken, Payment can be made online at....
    Last edited by AntrimMark; 28-07-2017 at 5:21 PM.
Page 2
    • AntrimMark
    • By AntrimMark 8th Jan 18, 11:33 AM
    • 41 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    I presume it's because many more people get bullied into paying up by these charlatans than fight them, unfortunately.
    I know of several users of the same car park who paid the charge, despite being pointed in the direction of forums like this. My wife would have been one of them if I'd let her.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 8th Jan 18, 12:38 PM
    • 1,771 Posts
    • 2,395 Thanks
    I know of several users of the same car park who paid the charge, despite being pointed in the direction of forums like this. My wife would have been one of them if I'd let her.
    Originally posted by AntrimMark
    Maybe you should point them to this:-
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jan 18, 11:55 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,041 Thanks
    Quick update. I didn't bother applying for a stay, just filed a robust defence statement based on what I've picked up from the newbie thread.(
    I was fighting two of these at the same time, and the court ordered that the two cases be heard together. The following day I had another letter from the court, both cases struck out "as disclosing no cause of action".
    Antrim Mark 5, Gemini/Gladstones 0
    Originally posted by AntrimMark
    Brilliant news! Very well fought!
    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.

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

1,901Posts Today

6,709Users online

Martin's Twitter