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@.

    • Kas22
    • By Kas22 20th Nov 17, 10:45 PM
    • 48Posts
    • 22Thanks
    Gladstones - Technical defence against PCM
    • #1
    • 20th Nov 17, 10:45 PM
    Gladstones - Technical defence against PCM 20th Nov 17 at 10:45 PM
    Hi All,

    Having looked over the site I can't seem to find any thread where there has been a post on technical dispute, unless I'm being sheer ignorant to searching (I apologise).

    To cut a long story short, I was issued an unjust ticket by PCM (those ex-clampers) stating I was "Parked within a restricted area" even though that wasn't the case as where the car was parked was not part of the controlled parking zone.

    Where the vehicle was parked used to be a shed for bicycle storage, so was not officially part of the car park, or the controlled area.
    The notice did not specify parking was inclusive of the area the vehicle was parked at and specified
    "Vehicles must be parked with a valid parking permit fully displayed within the windscreen and parked wholly within the confines of a marked bay appropriate for the permit on display..."

    I disputed this with PCM but received generic responses. I then took it to IAS who were also as useless as PCM (also found this out by reading threads on here and on pepipoo). I then started receiving letters from TRACE debt recovery which I ignored... and more recently I received a letter from Gladstones.

    Up to the point of disputing with PCM and the letters received from the debt recover firm, I was in touch with BMPA (British Motorists' Protection Association) who were very helpful... However BMPA cannot assist me any further as the claim is based on a technical defence and what my interpretation of the sign was. I therefore turn to yourselves for some help and guidance.

    The question is, should I respond with a template based on the following thread that @coupon-mad wrote /showthread.php?p=73401300#post73401300, or will this require some more thought?

    I am happy to see this through to court as I will not let them get money out of me on such grounds.

    Any help or advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
    I will post links to images once I am approved to do so.
Page 5
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Aug 18, 1:17 PM
    • 3,140 Posts
    • 3,853 Thanks
    From what I read, why would you want a hearing?

    The judgement was set aside. They can object, but why wouldyo uobject? They have to then ask for there ot be a hearing, and contoinue, IF they accept the set aside order without challenging it.
    You cannot do anything at this stage.

    It looks to me like, based on your 3rd august post, the set asiide of the judgement was granted on the 2nd, but intead of it being a reset because it was the courts issue, thyey have treated it more like a claimant error - and so its up to the claimant to see what they want to do.

    If they dont do antyhing within a few days after the orders 7 days you could see if the claim now shows as "stayed".
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Aug 18, 1:49 PM
    • 18,942 Posts
    • 29,807 Thanks
    What case have you got? What do you want to achieve?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    It's referring to the same case this thread is about.
    Originally posted by Kas22
    Well I guessed that, but this is the parking company's case against you. I'm not sure you are in any position to have it progress any further given that the set aside has now been given in your favour. It's the PPC who are in the position to pay to have it re-opened (but not many of them do it after it has once been thrown out by the court).

    I haven't gone back through the 80-odd posts, but did you issue a counterclaim at the time of the acknowledgement of service?

    Back to my second question (which you didn't answer) - what do you hope to achieve from having the case heard in court?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Kas22
    • By Kas22 6th Aug 18, 1:50 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 22 Thanks
    Ideally I wouldn't want a hearing.

    Best case scenario is if the Claimant doesn't challenge the Order.

    I'll keep an eye on the MCOL status and see if anything changes this week.
    Last edited by Kas22; 06-08-2018 at 1:53 PM.
    • Kas22
    • By Kas22 6th Aug 18, 1:58 PM
    • 48 Posts
    • 22 Thanks

    I haven't gone back through the 80-odd posts, but did you issue a counterclaim at the time of the acknowledgement of service?

    Back to my second question (which you didn't answer) - what do you hope to achieve from having the case heard in court?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas

    No, I filled out an AOS and sent a Statement of Defence.

    I was hoping to defend my case, but seeing as it's now been thrown out it's upto them to chase if they wish to pursue it further.
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

3,202Posts Today

8,741Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,?

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more?

  • Follow Martin