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
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 6th Dec 17, 3:04 PM
    • 18Posts
    • 16Thanks
    itsmepip
    PCM Parking fine - Heath Parade NW9 - CCJ stage
    • #1
    • 6th Dec 17, 3:04 PM
    PCM Parking fine - Heath Parade NW9 - CCJ stage 6th Dec 17 at 3:04 PM
    Warm hello to the good people on this thread. I am facing an odd situation with PCM and Gladstones. I only recently came to be aware of a CCJ outstanding against me while running a credit check on myself. Investigating further, I found that the CCJ relates to a PCN that PCM UK Ltd had issued way back in Nov 2016 for allegedly parking in a restricted area (at the layby near Sainsbury's on Heath Parade Colindale).
    I do not have any copy of the original PCN or the CCJ as it was all sent to my old address. However I could retrieve photos from the PCM website showing the car in the layby for 4 minutes with the lights on. Clearly someone photographed the vehicle and sent a PCN.
    The PCN and the CCJ were all addressed to my old address and hence I could not respond to anything. Neither did I know of their existence until I ran a credit check on myself.
    I researched the internet and found helpful threads on Parking Prankster's blog and several cases on MSE.
    I genuinely believe I've fallen prey to PCM UK and Gladstone's swindling scheme. This is absolutely outrageous and unfair.
    I have decided to appeal the CCJ to be set aside on the basis that the PCN claim is bogus.
    I found out the PCN number by calling PCM UK with the CCJ number (from my credit report).

    I have also read through the #newbies thread, most of the options are not available as this is already in CCJ stage.

    I understand I need to fill out form N244 to have the judgement set aside.

    Any thoughts would be much appreciated on how to refine the witness statement.- if anyone is kind enough to offer check and challenge, I will post the witness statement here.
    Last edited by itsmepip; 06-12-2017 at 3:49 PM.
Page 2
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 30th Jan 18, 10:44 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    itsmepip
    Thanks, @TheDeep.

    Iíve hopefully read as much as possible and done as much research as a non legal person can do now Iím just waiting for the hearing.
    Though my priority is to get the CCJ struck off, will consider a counterclaim !
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 30th Jan 18, 10:51 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    itsmepip
    @amoUk - thanks for the info and congratulations on the win !
    Will follow your cue on this ! Gladstone!!!8217;s need to know that they have no chance of winning with such unscrupulous means..
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 30th Jan 18, 10:59 PM
    • 8,706 Posts
    • 9,307 Thanks
    pappa golf
    you will have to TELL the judge , he will not know or care , if it gets that far
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 22nd Feb 18, 5:37 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    itsmepip
    Anyone who is still reading this..I thought it would be good to update that the hearing was successful and the CCJ will be removed.
    Next step I've been told is to prepare a robust defence for the case when it is transferred to the district court if the parking company want to still pursue the case.
    The district Judge on the hearing said that I will receive a DQ soon and will need to file another defence within 14 days.
    The judge suggested to add to my defence whether or not the company has authority of the landowner - in fact I was asked during the hearing - I produced the land registry documents that showed the land is not owned by Grahame Park.
    Needless to say the parking company did not turn up.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 22nd Feb 18, 5:47 PM
    • 18,902 Posts
    • 29,775 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The judge suggested to add to my defence whether or not the company has authority of the landowner - in fact I was asked during the hearing - I produced the land registry documents that showed the land is not owned by Grahame Park.
    Are you aware of the current status?

    http://lbbspending.blogspot.co.za/2018/02/HeathParade.html
    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.
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 22nd Feb 18, 6:53 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    itsmepip
    That is great news and thanks for sharing @Umkomaas

    I really hope that some common sense prevails and the parking charge notice is dropped and they don!!!8217;t go to court to waste anyone!!!8217;s time.

    They never had landowner authority anyway and now this is council controlled.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Feb 18, 7:01 PM
    • 60,111 Posts
    • 73,239 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Love the fact the Judge suggested what to add to your defence.

    If you are still £255 out of pocket (plus your costs to attend this hearing) mention that in your defence and ask that the Judge orders that the Claimant must pay all of your costs in the event that the claimant discontinues now.

    Show us your draft defence, start putting it together based on other Heath Parade ones from last year. Add the new info re the location, plus the above about the Defendant's fear that the Claimant will now discontinue, leaving you with the huge set aside fee and wasted costs.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 22-02-2018 at 7:03 PM.
    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.

    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 25th Feb 18, 1:57 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    itsmepip
    Happy Sunday...

    After a bit more research about a defence format, below is what I've drafted.
    In the set aside judgement letter, the judge has ordered to file any defence by 7 March.
    However the letter doesn't say what address to send it to.
    I think I'll call the court tomorrow to ask about next steps.
    Anyway, below is the full defence - it's a long read, but if anyone can provide feedback that would be absolutely fantastic.
    Again, thanks all for the help.


    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number XXXXXXXX

    DEFENCE

    BETWEEN:
    Parking Control Management UK LTD (PCM) (Claimant)
    v
    [NAME] (Defendant)




    ________________________________

    DEFENCE

    ________________________________

    I am [name] of [address] and I am the Defendant in this matter.

    Denial of claim:
    The claim [Parking Charge number and court claim number] is denied in its entirety except where explicitly admitted here. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

    i. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
    ii. The signage did not offer a contract to a motorist , the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies and Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules apply
    The Claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken have never been provided. As the Claimant has not provided this information, any signage details have been inferred from stock photographs and the details may not be correct. Minor variants in text may occur. All references to signage therefore, are subject to change.

    Reimbursement for costs incurred:
    I also invite the court to order the Claimant to reimburse the defendant for all costs incurred as per the Schedule of Costs submitted. I also fear that due to the above reasons imvalidating the claim, the Claimant may stop pursuing the charges, leaving me with a large set aside fee and associated costs.

    1. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case

    1.1. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for Parking Charge Notices ; which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist. I believe the claim has no merit and should be dismissed and I also assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
    1.2. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority was supplied by the Claimant at any time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant.
    1.3. The land for which the Claimant is asserting authority to issue parking charges is now under local authority control by Barnet Council. I have attached a copy of the notice from Barnet Council.
    1.4. Additionally, at the time when the parking charge notice was issued against me by the Claimant, I believe the Claimant assets that they had authority to issue parking charges on behalf of Genesis Housing for the land on the north side of Grahame Park Way, whereas it is clear from the Land Registry detail a copy of which I have attached to this defence that is not the case.
    1.5. Based on the above points, the court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
    1.6. The Claimant is also fully aware of additional cases that have held no merit in court based on the above reasons because in all such cases at the site under question, PCM UK were the parking company.

    2. The signage did not offer a contract to a motorist , the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies and Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules apply

    2.1. It is asserted that the Claimant charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, specifically regulation 8(1) of the Regulations and article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (in providing that an unfair term is not to be binding on the consumer), which is to redress the imbalance between the contracting parties!!!8217; bargaining power, and to re-establish equality between them, so that the contract terms which bind the parties are such as the parties would have agreed if they had negotiated the contract on equal terms.
    2.2. It is asserted that no reasonable person, of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of £100 as a consequence of instantly stopping on a public highway, if they had the opportunity to negotiate the contract on equal terms with the other contracting party.
    2.3. The site appears to be a lay-by and part of the public highway and there was no information close enough to be read by an approaching driver to suggest it is private land or otherwise restricted. Neither there are any physical barriers preventing public vehicle access.
    2.4. On the material date, the vehicle is shown as stopped for a very brief period of time (4 minutes 13 seconds) with the ignition lights on for the most part. I attach photographs obtained from the Claimant!!!8217;s website to support this. There was no nearby signage prohibiting a driver from entering the area. It is clear that the signs were so high and the writing so small it cannot be read from a vehicle or even by a pedestrian until right by the sign. I believe a parking warden manually took photographs of the vehicle at the layby on the relevant date. If the parking company genuinely wished to prevent parking, the warden could remain on site and politely ask drivers to leave immediately. They would also use large signs which can be seen from inside vehicles from the driver!!!8217;s seat.
    2.5. The Claimant signage with the largest font at this site states No Customer Parking at Any Time A further sign with much smaller writing and higher up states - The loading bay is only for authorised vehicles actively loading & unloading when delivering to the commercial tenants of Heath parade. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal, the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.
    2.6. The above point was tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that: !!!8220;If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels!!!8217; first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.!!!8221;
    2.7. While this is a County Court decision and therefore not binding, it is on all fours with the present case and may be considered as persuasive.
    2.8. The IPC code of conduct states that a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
    2.9. Thus, the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention. This activity is bordering on, if not actually crossing the boundary of, a criminal offence of Fraud By False Representation.
    2.10. In addition, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules that if signage has multiple interpretations the interpretation most favourable to the consumer applies. It is clear from this the signage with the largest font should apply.
    2.11. In the alternative, if it was held that the signage was contractually valid, it would be impossible for a motorist to have read the terms and conditions contained therein from a moving or stopped vehicle, and if the vehicle is stopped, the !!!8216;contravention!!!8217; according to the Claimant is already committed.
    2.12. The above point was recently tested in several cases regarding Hayes and Harlington station. There a similar situation arises as the vehicles were charged for briefly stopping but the signs are far away from vehicles and high up.
    2.13. In all cases it was ruled that no contract was entered by performance as the signage could not be read from a vehicle. No transcripts are available but as PCM UK were the claimant in all cases they will be fully aware of the cases; C3GF46K8, C3GF44K8, C3GFY8K8.
    2.14. Additionally, the supposed contract fails informational requirements for contracts established in the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation And Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014.
    2.15. Furthermore, the charge of £100 is a penalty and unfair consumer charge. The leading case on this matter is ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. In that case it was ruled that the penalties rule was engaged but the charge was not unfair because the motorist had the bargain of 2 hours of valuable free parking in exchange for the risk of paying £100 for overstaying. The risk was clearly brought to the attention of the consumer in a huge font. Here, there is no valuable consideration on offer and no bargain for the consumer, and the charge is hidden in small print. It is submitted that no motorist would agree to pay £100 instantly on stopping and this is therefore and unfair consumer term in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
    2.16. In addition to the £100 !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217;, for which liability is denied, the Claimant!!!8217;s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £162 (bringing the amount allegedly owed by me to £262 in total) which I submit have not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. The Court is invited to report Gladstones Solicitors to the Solicitors!!!8217; Regulation Authority for this deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, in contravention of their Code of Conduct.
    2.17. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
    2.18. The Court is thus invited to dismiss this Claim.

    3. Schedule of Costs

    3.1. The Claimant!!!8217;s actions had caused the court to issue a County Court Judgement (Number: ) which was eventually set aside on [date ] by judge [] at [court]. The set aside process cost me time, money and caused high levels of distress to my well being.
    3.2. Schedule of costs
    Research and preparation of defence for default judgement and claim as litigant in person @ £18 per hour, 7 hours.
    Total £126
    Printing of 3 copies of witness statement and skeleton argument and postage
    Estimate £25.
    1 day off work to attend hearings on [date] @£18 per hour X 8 hours
    £144
    Transport Charges for attending court and return for 1 days on [date]
    [Uber charges]
    Reimbursement for application for setting aside default judgement £255
    Total costs claimed £SUM of above


    Statement of Truth:
    I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true.
    Full name: [NAME]
    Address: [ADDRESS]
    Dated:

    Signed: __________________________________
    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 26th Feb 18, 10:42 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    itsmepip
    So..I called up Barnet Court to ask what 'file and serve' means as instructed on judgement form sent by the court..
    File - file defence to court by stipulated date
    Serve - serve defence to Claimant.
    I guess most already know it, but I didn't and had assumed that 2 copies of defence need to be sent to court.
    Anyway - can anyone tell me whether I should send the 'serve' part to PCM UK or to Gladstone or both to be on the safe side?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Mar 18, 9:45 PM
    • 60,111 Posts
    • 73,239 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Just noticed you didn't get a response.

    Have PCM replied to the defence and do you have a hearing date for the case?
    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.

    • itsmepip
    • By itsmepip 11th Apr 18, 12:10 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    itsmepip
    In case anyone is reading, just FYI, Gladstone have dropped the case from court - thankfully common sense isn!!!8217;t that uncommon.
    I got an email from them last week noting they
    will not pursue this case anymore.
    I called up the court to confirm the status and they said that the case was no longer active.
    It is unlikely they would have won in court especially now that the council has taken over the place!

    Thank you all so much for your support.

    As for the silence - was under an extremely busy schedule and was abroad.

    I think this thread can be closed now.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 18, 8:56 PM
    • 60,111 Posts
    • 73,239 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hooray, well done, another PCM Gladstones claim bites the dust with a decent defence!
    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.

    • Dhudds
    • By Dhudds 25th Jun 18, 1:14 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Dhudds
    Documents!
    Hi,
    I'm currently preparing a defence report for a similar parking ticket. Can you please kindly send me:
    1- A copy of Barnet Council confirming that they are now controlling that site.
    2- A copy of land registry

    Many thanks
    Dan
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 25th Jun 18, 1:26 PM
    • 18,902 Posts
    • 29,775 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Hi,
    I'm currently preparing a defence report for a similar parking ticket. Can you please kindly send me:
    1- A copy of Barnet Council confirming that they are now controlling that site.
    2- A copy of land registry

    Many thanks
    Dan
    Originally posted by Dhudds
    To whom are you addressing the above?

    Are you having help from any forum with your defence?
    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.
    • Dhudds
    • By Dhudds 26th Jun 18, 12:28 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Dhudds
    Hi,

    Thanks, I'm referring to itsmepip if he can provide me with the documents. If not anyone who can help. I was caught in similar circumstances last year and need to prepare my defence. I've been following the forum since October last year.
    Thanks
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 26th Jun 18, 8:40 AM
    • 18,902 Posts
    • 29,775 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Hi,

    Thanks, I'm referring to itsmepip if he can provide me with the documents. If not anyone who can help. I was caught in similar circumstances last year and need to prepare my defence. I've been following the forum since October last year.
    Thanks
    Originally posted by Dhudds
    Itsmepip hasn't visited the forum for over 6 weeks, so may not see this. Send him a PM, then he should receive an email notifying him that you are trying to contact.

    Zaklondon was offering help in supplying a copy of the Land Registry map. Have you contacted him?

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74104608#post74104608

    Have you read all the Parking Prankster blogs on Heath Parade - there's lots of information there that could help you develop your defence. Google 'Parking Prankster Heath Parade' for links to many blogs on this.

    You don't seem to have your own thread here on your case. Are you getting help anywhere?
    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.
    • Dhudds
    • By Dhudds 26th Jun 18, 8:18 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Dhudds
    Thanks for advice. I've sent a private message to Zaklondon but never received any email from him.
    I wasn't aware that I should have my own thread on my case so I just followed the parking Prankster blogs on Heath Parade. They are quite informative.
    The last letter I had from Gladstone asked for £160 to be paid within 14 days otherwise they took me to court so I started panicking and spent sometime in preparing my defence report however I didn't hear from them for past 5 moths until recently I received a letter before claim. I read the government website and they advised people to respond to this letter. I've now extracting some sentences from my defence report so i can reply to them in couple of days time as I am approaching the deadline of 30 days.
    I don't get help from anywhere. I'm on my own with my own research and relying on good people on this website. Do you suggest I create a new thread?Also are you suggesting that I reply to their letter before claim or should I ignore them?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 26th Jun 18, 8:26 PM
    • 18,902 Posts
    • 29,775 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Do you suggest I create a new thread?
    Yes please, with a bit of background and a timeline of events.

    The last letter I had from Gladstone asked for £160 to be paid within 14 days otherwise they took me to court so I started panicking and spent sometime in preparing my defence report however I didn't hear from them for past 5 moths until recently I received a letter before claim.
    Does the latest LBC's reference number commence with a 1xxx, 3xxx, or 4xxx?

    Your own thread is the place to get the best help, not flitting in and out of other threads. The forum will see you through this.
    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.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 26th Jun 18, 8:28 PM
    • 36,840 Posts
    • 20,978 Thanks
    Quentin
    Why not start your own thread here ?

    Read up in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum #2 there covers defences


    Put your draft defence in your own thread for comments before sending it
    • Dhudds
    • By Dhudds 26th Jun 18, 8:35 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Dhudds
    OK. I will.
    It starts with 1xxx
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

3,219Posts Today

5,072Users 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,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • 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? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin