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
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 12th Jan 18, 2:18 PM
    • 31Posts
    • 8Thanks
    hartynoll
    Gladstones LBC help please!!
    • #1
    • 12th Jan 18, 2:18 PM
    Gladstones LBC help please!! 12th Jan 18 at 2:18 PM
    Hi Guru's

    First of all, I have read through the Newbie's thread and googled for a few hours but I am not 100% sure what action to take next so please accept my apologies if you feel that you guys are repeating yourselves.

    First of all, I parked on an unfinished housing site in July 2017, along with about 30 other parents who had been asked to attend a meeting for the kick off of the local rugby elite u16s squad.

    When I returned to my car, I along with most of the others, had PCNs from Millennium on our windscreens. I must say, as others have posted, the signage was tiny and I didn't notice them when driving in.

    I sent them an email on 6th July 2017, which I copied from the NEWBIE thread stating that the signs did not adhere to the large lettering etc etc and requested a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    ON 21 July, I had a response from MPG and suprise surprise, I did not get the charge cancelled but neither did I get a POPLA code. They referred me to the IAS, which I can see from here is a waste of time.

    I subsequently had 3 DRP letters, followed by 2 Zenith letters which I have ignored but kept.

    This morning I had a letter from Gladstones Solicitors with a 'Letter Before Claim' heading. Please note that the reference begins with '1' and it asks me to pay the solicitors directly, rather than a DRP.

    I understand that I must now respond to the solicitors, but the examples I have found on here have suggested that MPG or Gladstones provide me with all evidence etc, which they kind of already did in the response to my initial letter.

    Also, there was some regulation change in October 2017, but as the incident was prior to that, should the regulation still need to be followed?

    Thank you for any advice guys, these things really get me down and affect me.

    I also find it strange that the solicitors have only asked for the same amount £160 as MPG did, with none of the usual admin fee or markup that I would have expected
Page 3
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 13th Jul 18, 10:59 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Ok, here's my first draft, how does it look? I need to add some more info about how I have been fully compliant with all correspondence etc..

    IN THE COUNTY COURT - Claim No.: XXXXX

    Between

    XXXXX(Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXXXX (Defendant)
    ____________________________
    WITNESS STATEMENT
    __________________________

    I, XXXX of XXXXXX, am the defendant in this case.

    1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.

    2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

    3. I assert that I am the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle in question in this case.

    4. I confirm that on the date mentioned, I was attending a parents’ meeting for the Ospreys under 16s elite squad in the Llandarcy Academy of Sport, of which my son is a member of. Upon approaching the academy, stewards were stopping vehicles from entering the car park, so I was required to find alternative parking.
    5. As I was also travelling with my 11 month old disabled son, who was reliant on Oxygen at the time, I had to seek parking that was in close proximity to the Academy.
    6. The road leading to the land at Heritage Gate, Neath appeared to be a public road, without curb-side markings, thus I had no reason to believe that there was any restricted parking at the kerbside.
    7. I noted when exiting the car and walking to the meeting, that a number of other parents’ cars were parked and present in the same location, with more arriving as I left the area.
    8. Upon returning to my vehicle, approximately an hour later, I found that a Parking Charge Notice from XX (also known as XXXXXX) had been affixed to my windscreen, advising me of my “contravention” for being “Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or permit”
    9. I noted at least 20 other cars also had ticked affixed to their windscreens. I did not, however, notice any wardens present who had or were issuing tickets.
    10. After noticing the note on my windscreen, I looked around the site for appropriate signage that refers to the parking restrictions. I can confirm that signs were present, but were sparse in number and insufficient in size for ease of visibility. I refer here to paragraph 108 from The Beavis Case judgement, proving the claimant understands the importance of clear and prominent signage. The sign referred to in the Beavis case is enclosed as Exhibit IL5. When compared to the excel car park sign – Exhibit IL8, I submit that no reasonable person would agree that their terms are brief, clear and prominently proclaimed
    11. After approaching the signage and studying the text, I noticed a number of confusing statements. Firstly, the sign stated that “Permit Holders Only” were permitted to park. This is prohibitive and suggests that Non-Permit Holders therefore cannot be offered a contract. This is referred to in the decision recorded by DJ Iyer in the case of Pace v Lengyel dated Exhibit.
    12. Furthermore, the “Terms and Conditions” of the signage state that “Vehicles must park within a marked bay”. At the time of the incident, no bays were marked on the site, making compliance with this term impossible, even with a valid permit.
    13. On 6th July 2017, I completed an appeal to XXX, as advised in the Parking Charge Notice, outlining the lack of clarity and size signage. Exhibit This appeal was subsequently rejected by XXX on 21st July 2017 and a letter was received by myself advising me of the fact. Exhibit
    14. Subsequently, I received debt recovery letters from “Debt Recovery Plus” on 12th September 2017, 27th September 2017 and 12th October 2017 Exhibits requesting immediate payment of the charge. The charge had been increased from £100 to £160 in these correspondences.
    15. I then received more letters on 30th October and 13th November 2017, this time from “Zenith collections Exhibits . I would like to draw the court’s attention to the wording toward the bottom of the letters which state “A court judgement or decree against you could seriously affect your ability to obtain credit in the future” I find this sentence both threatening and misleading, as to my knowledge neither a court judgement nor decree is applicable in this process, regardless of the outcome.
    16. I have very serious concerns about how XXX have handled my personal information by allowing these two companies, who I know nothing about and have no connection with, to, not only know my personal details, but to have enough information about my case to be able to send such letters.

    17. On 5th January 2018, I received a ’Letter before Claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors, on behalf of MPS. I replied by letter on 19th January Exhibit , requesting further copies of evidence in line with the protocol which came into force on 1st October 2017, in order to assist me with the claim in further detail. In particular, I was keen to understand details of landowner agreements in place with MPS, which would establish them as “the creditor”.
    18. However, a response from Gladstones dated 19th February 2018 Exhibit advises that believed that their LBC is compliant with the up to date version of the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Protocol, and no further information was offered.
    19. Again, on 25th April 2018, after receiving the claim form from the Court, I sent a letter Exhibit to Gladstones confirming my intention to contest all of the claim, and as a request under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure of documents mentioned in the claim. In particular, copies of the contract between XXXX and the landowner and proof of planning permission granted to XXXX for the erection of signage, under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. To date, no information or acknowledgement of my request has been received.
    • hartynoll
    • By hartynoll 16th Jul 18, 4:36 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    hartynoll
    Right, I have settled with this:

    IN THE COUNTY COURT - Claim No.: XXXXX

    Between

    XXX (Claimant)

    -and-

    XXXX (Defendant)
    ____________________________
    WITNESS STATEMENT
    __________________________

    I, XXXXX, am the defendant in this case.

    1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.

    2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

    3. I assert that I am both the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle in question in this case, on the material date.

    4. I confirm that on the date mentioned, I was attending a parents’ meeting for the Ospreys under 16s elite squad in the Llandarcy Academy of Sport, of which my son is a member of. Upon approaching the academy, stewards were stopping vehicles from entering the car park, so I was required to find alternative parking.
    5. As I was also travelling with my 11 month old disabled son, who was reliant on Oxygen at the time, I had to seek parking that was in close proximity to the Academy.
    6. The road leading to the land at Heritage Gate, Neath appeared to be a public road, without curb-side markings, thus I had no reason to believe that there was any restricted parking at the kerbside.
    7. I noted when exiting the car and walking to the meeting, that a number of other parents’ cars were parked and present in the same location, with more arriving as I left the area.
    8. Upon returning to my vehicle, approximately an hour later, I found that a Parking Charge Notice from MPS (also known as Milennium Door and Event Security Ltd) had been affixed to my windscreen, advising me of my “contravention” for being “Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or permit”
    9. I noted at least 20 other cars also had ticked affixed to their windscreens. I did not, however, notice any wardens present who had or were issuing tickets.
    10. After noticing the note on my windscreen, I looked around the site for appropriate signage that refers to the parking restrictions. I can confirm that signs were present, but were sparse in number and insufficient in size for ease of visibility. I refer here to paragraph 108 from The Beavis Case judgement, proving the claimant understands the importance of clear and prominent signage. The sign referred to in the Beavis case is enclosed as Exhibit IL5. When compared to the excel car park sign – Exhibit IL8, I submit that no reasonable person would agree that their terms are brief, clear and prominently proclaimed
    11. After approaching the signage and studying the text, I noticed a number of confusing statements. Firstly, the sign stated that “Permit Holders Only” were permitted to park. This is prohibitive and suggests that Non-Permit Holders therefore cannot be offered a contract. This is referred to in the decision recorded by DJ Iyer in the case of Pace v Lengyel dated Exhibit.
    12. Furthermore, the “Terms and Conditions” of the signage state that “Vehicles must park within a marked bay”. At the time of the incident, no bays were marked on the site, making compliance with this term impossible, even with a valid permit.
    21. Both the IPC and BPA state that signs should be simple and easy to read, and there should be strong colour contrast between text and background. Both also recommend black on white as a good example. Exhibits – BPA and IPC Exhibit IL6 – the IPC code of practice; Exhibit IL7 – the BPA code of practice;
    13. On 6th July 2017, I completed an appeal to MPS, as advised in the Parking Charge Notice, outlining the lack of clarity and size signage. Exhibit This appeal was subsequently rejected by MPS on 21st July 2017 and a letter was received by myself advising me of the fact. Exhibit
    14. Subsequently, I received debt recovery letters from “Debt Recovery Plus” on 12th September 2017, 27th September 2017 and 12th October 2017 Exhibits requesting immediate payment of the charge. The charge had been increased from £100 to £160 in these correspondences.
    15. I then received more letters on 30th October and 13th November 2017, this time from “Zenith collections Exhibits . I would like to draw the court’s attention to the wording toward the bottom of the letters which state “A court judgement or decree against you could seriously affect your ability to obtain credit in the future” I find this sentence both threatening and misleading, as to my knowledge neither a court judgement nor decree is applicable in this process, regardless of the outcome.
    16. I have very serious concerns about how MPS have handled my personal information by allowing these two companies, who I know nothing about and have no connection with, to, not only know my personal details, but to have enough information about my case to be able to send such letters.

    17. On 5th January 2018, I received a ’Letter before Claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors, on behalf of MPS. I replied by letter on 19th January Exhibit , requesting further copies of evidence in line with the protocol which came into force on 1st October 2017, in order to assist me with the claim in further detail. In particular, I was keen to understand details of landowner agreements in place with MPS, which would establish them as “the creditor”.
    18. However, a response from Gladstones dated 19th February 2018 Exhibit advises that believed that their LBC is compliant with the up to date version of the Practice Direction for Pre-Action Protocol, and no further information was offered.
    19. Again, on 25th April 2018, after receiving the claim form from the Court, I sent a letter Exhibit to Gladstones confirming my intention to contest all of the claim, and as a request under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure of documents mentioned in the claim. In particular, copies of the contract between MPS and the landowner and proof of planning permission granted to MPS for the erection of signage, under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. To date, no information or acknowledgement of my request has been received.
    20. I do not believe that the charge claimed either before or after fees is fair or justifiable. In comparison, the local council fees are either £25 or £35 if paid within 14 days. Exhibit
    21. Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the BPA and IPC Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast suited to an outdoor sign.

    22. I refer the court to the recent discussion in the House of Commons regarding a proposed Bill by Sir Greg Knight in relation to a new mandatory code of practice for private parking companies. In the discussion of 2nd February 2018 in the House of Commons, a number of MPs agreed with Sir Greg that the current situation was unacceptable and that people were being penalised for driving by such parking companies. Exhibit


    23. I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.


    ……………………………………………………………………!!!65533;
    !!!65533;…. (add name and sign)
    ………………………
    (add Date)
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 16th Jul 18, 5:05 PM
    • 2,813 Posts
    • 3,501 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    It isnt a defence statement. Its a witness statement
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

2,540Posts Today

8,924Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @mmhpi: "Two years ago, I was in the fortunate position to be able to found @mmhpi... I?m incredibly proud of the work the team there is?

  • It means you should either have an annual policy in place, or book a specific single trip policy when you book https://t.co/oBDx8TmzQU

  • The fight to divorce mental health and debt... https://t.co/G3pyGje6Kh

  • Follow Martin