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
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 17th Nov 17, 4:27 PM
    • 24Posts
    • 5Thanks
    georgia_00
    Letter Before Claim - Gladstones
    • #1
    • 17th Nov 17, 4:27 PM
    Letter Before Claim - Gladstones 17th Nov 17 at 4:27 PM
    Hi Everyone,

    Recieved a parking ticket on the car window back in October 2016 from Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited.

    Chasing letters (surprisingly only a few) were incorrectly marked for attention of....so they were conveniently ignored (name/initials are close to registered keeper, but not correct) which may or may not have been the best way to resolve the situation.

    Now 13 months later, Gladstones have issued a 'Letter Before Claim' which after reading the information on here seems to be a genuine solicitors letter (reference begins with a 1 etc)

    - Any advice regarding incorrect name?
    - Is there a standard template response, even though this will be my first correspondence back?

    Will attempt to post a copy of the letter in next post...
    Last edited by georgia_00; 17-11-2017 at 9:15 PM. Reason: Removed name
Page 2
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 10th Jan 18, 4:19 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    Just an update, as there was no substantive response from them, I sent the response form today, ticking I dispute the debt, and to refer to correspondence sent previously by myself.

    I presume the next correspondence back from them will be court action?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 10th Jan 18, 6:19 PM
    • 3,465 Posts
    • 4,325 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Probably. So get reading post 2 again ��
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 10th Jan 18, 8:56 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    Post number 2 gave me the template for my response to Gladstones ĎLetter before claimí.

    That was done and sent, then Iíve got a standard response back with a further 30 days to respond.

    Am I missing something from the 2nd post by Coupon-mad?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jan 18, 10:34 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No, why not read other Gladstones threads, everyone gets this. Been discussed lots of times, various replies used.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 11th Jan 18, 10:24 AM
    • 3,465 Posts
    • 4,325 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Post two takes you through the court claim process, so you know what to do and when.
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 13th Feb 18, 9:11 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    Update, and a strange response from Gladstones!

    They have just sent a 3 or 4 line letter back saying that they did reply substantively to my letter before claim response, by way of their FAQ!!!8217;s in their response.

    And then says visit PCM parking portal for evidence, which i did visit and its shows images of the vehicle and the parking sign.

    And thats it!

    So i either respond saying that they still haven!!!8217;t provided a substantive reply to my original letter, or just wait and see what they send next?
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 11th Apr 18, 8:06 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    Have today recieved county court claim form.

    Can i copy a response from someone else on here or do i need to tailor it to the specifics of my case?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Apr 18, 8:16 PM
    • 19,507 Posts
    • 30,866 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Have today recieved county court claim form.

    Can i copy a response from someone else on here or do i need to tailor it to the specifics of my case?
    Originally posted by georgia_00
    Work through the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2 where the whole court process from LBA to the actual hearing is detailed. Within the post there are links to various defences for you to use as the basis for yours.

    First job though is to acknowledge service of the court papers (as described in the sticky post), but do not file any defence with this. It comes later - the sticky walks you through it all.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 13th Apr 18, 12:54 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    First things first, I have acknowledged service of the court papers.

    To save re-reading the thread, the case in summary is my vehicle was parked in a loading bay outside of a housing estate. Ticket recieved from PCM for "parking without clearly displaying a permit to park". They have photographic evidence of the car, and it is stopped adjacent to a sign.

    I have gone through the sticky post 2, and read lots of draft arguments. Below is my draft defence:


    ___________________________

    1.2. This claim refers to a parking incident in an unmarked lay-by outside the Barham Park housing Estate, in Wembley. For all intents and purposes this bay appears to be part of the public highway.

    1.3. On the 29th October 2016 the vehicle was in said unmarked lay-by.

    1.4. After a period of 1 minute and 8 seconds, going by the evidence provided, a parking charge notice was applied to the vehicle.

    1.5. The Particulars of Claim states that the charge is for breaching the terms of parking on the land.

    1.6. The claimant refused to provide any evidence of landowner authority for issuing parking charges, citing client confidentiality.

    2. No Contract Exists

    2.1 I understand from correspondence with the Claimant that the Claimants case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a contract between myself and the Claimant. The breach of terms on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by this signage.

    2.2 There is no offer made by the signage in this case, and no conceivable way I could have benefitted from this alleged contract, without breaching its terms.

    2.3 The very act of entering into this alleged contract (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. How was the sum of £100 'agreed', given that PCM's sign is prohibitive - unable in this case to be deemed to be offering a contract?

    2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester; in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. I cannot have entered into a contract for something I was not authorised to do.

    3. Inadequate Signage

    3.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that I would not have passed any signage indicating I was entering private land.

    3.2 The IPC guidelines state that signage that is intended to form a contract should be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site. The signs are visible, however they are impossible to read clearly from the vehicle.

    3.3 The IPC guidelines (1.15) state Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. No specific time is given, although (15.2) specifies a minimum period of ten minutes for leaving the site. I do not consider the time given (1 minutes 8 seconds based on the evidence provided) was adequate time for the driver to read and assess the signage on site. It is certainly not enough time to ask for clarification on the parking restrictions.

    4. Consumer Rights

    4.1 The signage at the site does not carry the information required by the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13), specifically on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2.

    5. Landowner Authority

    5.1 Despite being asked, the Claimant has not provided any indication that they are authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have the authority to do this.

    6. Additional Costs

    6.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original parking charge. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

    6.2 The Particulars of Claim include £50 for solicitor's costs, yet all I have received from the Claimants solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these costs are justified. Proof that the sum of £50 was paid by their client, to whom, and for what service.

    END
    _____________________

    The points included above are the ones I feel comfortable with, I feel my strongest argument is possibly the 'no contract exists' one? The sign states authorised vehicles only.

    Can I post images of the signs/location etc to help?
    Last edited by georgia_00; 13-04-2018 at 3:49 PM. Reason: 1) Deleted 1.1 (introduction), 2) spelling/formatting corrections 3) Stopping/Parking wording amended to just 'parking'
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 12:59 PM
    • 3,465 Posts
    • 4,325 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    " For all intents and purposes this bay appears either to be part of the public highway." - where is the other part to the "either"?

    Was it stopped or was it parked? The two are different. You cannot park ina real loading bay, but you can stop (because loading and unloading is part of stopping)

    1.1 I hate. Dont excuse yourself here.
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 13th Apr 18, 2:48 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    Hi thanks for your comments nosferatu. I have amended the above to reflect your comments.

    - Deleted 1.1

    - Amended the wording as per your comments " For all intents and purposes this bay appears either to be part of the public highway." - where is the other part to the "either"? (I didn't mean to write 'either')

    - Do I have to specify if the vehicle was parked or stopped? I thought I may possibly prejudice the 'prohibitive sign' argument if I confirmed the car was in fact actually 'stopped/loading', rather than parked?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 13th Apr 18, 2:56 PM
    • 3,465 Posts
    • 4,325 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    If there was no contract offered, there was no contract offered, regardless of what the vehicle was doing.

    It just sounds better if you can say definitiely what the vehicle was doing.
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 13th Apr 18, 3:56 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    Thanks again. Have amended the wording.

    Parking sign:



    Layby/unmarked bays (to the right of image)





    Last edited by georgia_00; 13-04-2018 at 4:47 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Apr 18, 4:26 PM
    • 9,313 Posts
    • 9,599 Thanks
    KeithP
    Parking sign:

    https://ibb.co/iiKMZ7
    Originally posted by georgia_00
    This line on that sign looks useful:

    .
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 13th Apr 18, 4:45 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    Hi Keith, that line is forming the basis of the sign being forbidding argument, therefore no contract exists.

    I was thinking that works in my favour, unless you think otherwise?
    Last edited by georgia_00; 13-04-2018 at 4:48 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Apr 18, 4:48 PM
    • 9,313 Posts
    • 9,599 Thanks
    KeithP
    Yes I agree with you. It works in your favour.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 5:04 PM
    • 61,816 Posts
    • 74,708 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes that's like in the Judgment of PCM v Bull et al, click on & read the transcript here:

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

    discussed here:

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

    I would cite the Bull case, not this one, partly because it is PCM and the signs are almost the same, and partly because the above one has a transcript:
    2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester; in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. I cannot have entered into a contract for something I was not authorised to do.
    Have you got in your defence, the bit about Watchdog and PCM saying when outed in that programme that they 'make it up most of the time' when dealing with appeals?

    I would. And I would mention the Parliamentary debate about this rogue industry and the IAS appeal/Gladstones/The IPC not being independent/having a conflict of interests.

    These links might help if you didn't find these posts and cases to read, already:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72030628#post72030628

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71477121#post71477121

    HTH
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 13th Apr 18, 7:41 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    Thanks for the responses nosferatu, keith, and coupon mad.

    Next chance to get on a proper PC iíll prepare a final draft that will hopefully be suitable for submitting online in my defence.

    Iíve tried to keep it as concise as possible, and will also try to weed out any final bits of waffle too when I edit.

    Many thanks again
    Last edited by georgia_00; 13-04-2018 at 11:35 PM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 13th Apr 18, 8:56 PM
    • 19,507 Posts
    • 30,866 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I!!!8217; !!!8216;draft!!!8217;
    Get rid of these as follows:
    Please switch off your 'Smart Punctuation' on your iPhone/iPad to avoid the littering of your posts with !!!!8217; and the like, as every apostrophe and some other punctuations convert to exclamation marks and numbers.

    Go to 'General' > 'Keyboard' > 'Smart Punctuation' and flick the switch off.

    Switching off seems to have no detrimental affect on any other use of the keyboard.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 13-04-2018 at 8:58 PM.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    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.
    • georgia_00
    • By georgia_00 16th Apr 18, 10:57 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    georgia_00
    2nd Draft:

    - Deleted 3.2 (possibly contradictory stating the signs could not be read from the vehicle, however I am arguing the signs clearly state no parking for unauthorised vehicles? Also photo evidence shows the vehicle parked directly next to a sign, therefore possibly a weak argument)

    - Edit 3.3 (the 1 minute 8 seconds period of timestamps on the photo's by PCM didn't make a lot of sense/make a point)

    - Edit 2.4 (Added PCMUK vs Bull et al case, deleted the ES parking case)

    - Edit 2.2 (Added 'no parking for any other vehicles at any time')
    _____________________________

    1.2. This claim refers to a parking incident in an unmarked lay-by outside the Barham Park housing Estate, in Wembley. For all intents and purposes this bay appears to be part of the public highway.

    1.3. On the 29th October 2016 the vehicle was in said unmarked lay-by.

    1.4. Over a period of 1 minute and 8 seconds, going by the photographic evidence provided by PCM, a parking charge notice was applied to the vehicle.

    1.5. The Particulars of Claim states that the charge is for breaching the terms of parking on the land.

    1.6. The claimant refused to provide any evidence of landowner authority for issuing parking charges, citing client confidentiality.

    2. No Contract Exists

    2.1 I understand from correspondence with the Claimant that the Claimants case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a contract between myself and the Claimant. The breach of terms on the Particulars of Claim presumably refers to the supposed contract formed by this signage.

    2.2 There is no offer made by the signage in this case, and no conceivable way I could have benefitted from this alleged contract, without breaching its terms. The sign states 'No parking for any other vehicles at any time'.

    2.3 The very act of entering into this alleged contract (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform. How was the sum of £100 'agreed', given that PCM's sign is prohibitive - unable in this case to be deemed to be offering a contract?

    2.4 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford, and PCMUK vs Bull et al, in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were authorised to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not authorised to park. I cannot have entered into a contract for something I was not authorised to do.

    3. Inadequate Signage

    3.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that I would not have passed any signage indicating I was entering private land.

    3.3 The IPC guidelines (1.15) state Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. No specific time is given, although (15.2) specifies a minimum period of ten minutes for leaving the site. I do not consider the time given was adequate time for the driver to read (driver recalls approx 3-4 minutes) and assess the signage on site.

    4. Consumer Rights

    4.1 The signage at the site does not carry the information required by the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13), specifically on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2.

    5. Landowner Authority

    5.1 Despite being asked, the Claimant has not provided any evidence that they are authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have the authority to do this.

    6. Additional Costs

    6.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original parking charge. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a contract into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

    6.2 The Particulars of Claim include £50 for solicitor's costs, yet all I have received from the Claimants solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these costs are justified. Proof that the sum of £50 was paid by their client, to whom, and for what service.

    ______________________________________________
    Last edited by georgia_00; 16-04-2018 at 2:02 PM.
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

2,022Posts Today

8,169Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Thanks so much to all who watched @itvMLshow LIVE last night. The ratings are in at 2.4m and 12% share, lower tha? https://t.co/Jj62j1fV5F

  • RT @stomp_3k: Oh @MartinSLewis would be proud proud of me went sim free on my mobile contract renewal and bought my handset outright saving?

  • RT @MoneySavingExp: Wales Govt steps up to help ?severely mentally impaired? access crucial council tax discount after MSE campaign - BUT M?

  • Follow Martin