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
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 17th Apr 18, 10:26 AM
    • 92Posts
    • 44Thanks
    RM_2007
    At Court Hearing stage with Gladstones and PCM
    • #1
    • 17th Apr 18, 10:26 AM
    At Court Hearing stage with Gladstones and PCM 17th Apr 18 at 10:26 AM
    The old thread is closed so starting a new one.

    Old thread with all the info here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5346095

    TLDR version - got an NTK back in 2015 for being in a private development, I wasnt the driver but am told that the driver would have only been waiting and not parked, PPC not identified the driver, now at court stage.

    My arguments are:

    1: The car wasn't on the development at the time specified on the NTK (their own evidence proves it)
    2: PPC have not identified the driver and no contract was formed
    3: Failed to comply with POFA if they are going for keeper liability
    4: Failure to set out clear parking terms

    Drafted Witness statement and would appreciate any comments.

    Drop box link https://www.dropbox.com/s/k4995d0gj14s7n0/Witness_statement_rm2007_draft.pdf?dl=0

    Will copy the paragraphs into a post if that is easier.

    Many thanks for all the help guys
    Last edited by RM_2007; 17-04-2018 at 10:28 AM.
Page 1
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 17th Apr 18, 10:31 AM
    • 3,269 Posts
    • 5,487 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #2
    • 17th Apr 18, 10:31 AM
    • #2
    • 17th Apr 18, 10:31 AM
    The WS is meaningless without the evidence of the pics, the site layout, the wording on the signs and the contract - which are all missing.

    They can and do say anything and the evidence usually says something else.

    You're asking us to dismantle something blindfolded.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 17th Apr 18, 10:32 AM
    • 10,000 Posts
    • 9,825 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 17th Apr 18, 10:32 AM
    • #3
    • 17th Apr 18, 10:32 AM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Apr 18, 11:23 AM
    • 61,584 Posts
    • 74,468 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 17th Apr 18, 11:23 AM
    • #4
    • 17th Apr 18, 11:23 AM
    The old thread is not closed, ooops, sorry! Edited to say maybe you mean your really old one!

    Originally Posted by Coupon-mad
    OK so re the next ones - the other court claim and the LBC - I would start a new thread (unusual for me to say that but you don't want people confusing it with this one).
    I think I have one already for that one - was from a few years ago. I'll start updating that one.

    Many thanks for all your advice.
    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.

    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 17th Apr 18, 12:32 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    • #5
    • 17th Apr 18, 12:32 PM
    • #5
    • 17th Apr 18, 12:32 PM
    The WS is meaningless without the evidence of the pics, the site layout, the wording on the signs and the contract - which are all missing.

    They can and do say anything and the evidence usually says something else.

    You're asking us to dismantle something blindfolded.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    Hi IamEmanresu,

    NTK below



    Uploaded their "contract" and site plan with my annotations here
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/oedaqk50uc2doui/claimants%20contract%20and%20site%20plan.pdf?dl=0

    The sign is here
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/48du5wu0ydx2940/IMG_3827.JPG?dl=0

    GSV

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Academy+Way,+Dagenham+RM8+2BF/@51.549252,0.1135347,3a,75y,317.98h,99.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ5ddylz2OHwnAb-2-Ljzmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x47d8a5c92f5eb 8db:0x2aa723e521e354da!8m2!3d51.5494681!4d0.112459 1
    Last edited by RM_2007; 17-04-2018 at 12:37 PM.
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 17th Apr 18, 12:38 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    • #6
    • 17th Apr 18, 12:38 PM
    • #6
    • 17th Apr 18, 12:38 PM
    not sure why the image is getting blown up like that but will re-upload as soon as I can.
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 17th Apr 18, 1:03 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    • #7
    • 17th Apr 18, 1:03 PM
    • #7
    • 17th Apr 18, 1:03 PM
    Updated the WS to include the evidence - still a WIP as I have some more photos to obtain and take the video.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/o28y600714twbvx/Witness_statement_draft_for%20review.pdf?dl=0
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 17th Apr 18, 1:08 PM
    • 3,269 Posts
    • 5,487 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #8
    • 17th Apr 18, 1:08 PM
    • #8
    • 17th Apr 18, 1:08 PM
    Some of Academy Way is highway and some is not, so you should check that the area the car was parked was private - rather than just accepting it. The sign is not clear. The "penal" element is buried in the small print, dense text and unnecessary wording. It does not meet the standards for clarity set by Beavis or Denning's Red Hand Rule.

    Normal PCM crap so it should be a doddle.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5760415
    2. Template defences that say nothing https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5818671&page=5#86
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 17th Apr 18, 2:10 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    • #9
    • 17th Apr 18, 2:10 PM
    • #9
    • 17th Apr 18, 2:10 PM
    Some of Academy Way is highway and some is not, so you should check that the area the car was parked was private - rather than just accepting it. The sign is not clear. The "penal" element is buried in the small print, dense text and unnecessary wording. It does not meet the standards for clarity set by Beavis or Denning's Red Hand Rule.

    Normal PCM crap so it should be a doddle.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    Thanks IamEmanresu.

    I'll make enquires with the with the local borough regarding the highways
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 17th Apr 18, 2:14 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    Right so just called the court to check Gladstones had paid the hearing fee and the court system does not show a payment.

    The Notice of Allocation stated that they must pay the fee by the 3rd o April so it is way overdue.

    I've been asked to email to court to confirm that the fee hasn't been paid and if the case is being struck out.

    If it does get struck out, can I claim any of my costs - for time spent preparing?
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 27th Apr 18, 8:07 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    Still haven't had a reply from the court to confirm if Gladstones have paid the hearing fees - will chase it up on Monday.

    However, received a letter in the post from Gladstones stating:


    "We act for the claimant.

    In accordance with CPR 27.9 our Client hereby gives notice that it will not be attending the hearing on 4th May 2018.

    We confirm the court has been informed and that we have asked the Court to decide the claim in our Client's absence based on the evidence submitted.

    Yours Sincerely

    Gladstones Solicitors"


    If I have understood CPR 27.9, as they have given notice, their evidence and statement will be taken into account. However I can still attend and present my case.

    Would be grateful if someone could confirm and also confirm if there is anything I need to do as a result of this move by Gladstones.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Apr 18, 8:11 PM
    • 61,584 Posts
    • 74,468 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You must attend! They will have paid the fee if they sent this, I suspect. They rely on the fact people still manage to lose even if the Claimant doesn't attend.

    Do not miss the chance to tear into their evidence and the WS from a person who has never set foot in the car park and has used a template that is not a real WS.
    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.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 27th Apr 18, 8:28 PM
    • 9,241 Posts
    • 9,452 Thanks
    KeithP
    You last mentioned a Witness Statement on 17 April, and at that time it was incomplete.

    Have you now filed your Witness Statement?
    Have you sent a copy to Gladstones?
    .
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 27th Apr 18, 9:26 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    Some of Academy Way is highway and some is not, so you should check that the area the car was parked was private - rather than just accepting it. The sign is not clear. The "penal" element is buried in the small print, dense text and unnecessary wording. It does not meet the standards for clarity set by Beavis or Denning's Red Hand Rule.

    Normal PCM crap so it should be a doddle.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    L&Q tell me that the roads haven't been adopted by the highways as yet - will be soon.
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 27th Apr 18, 9:27 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    You must attend! They will have paid the fee if they sent this, I suspect. They rely on the fact people still manage to lose even if the Claimant doesn't attend.

    Do not miss the chance to tear into their evidence and the WS from a person who has never set foot in the car park and has used a template that is not a real WS.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Definitely will attend.
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 27th Apr 18, 9:29 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    You last mentioned a Witness Statement on 17 April, and at that time it was incomplete.

    Have you now filed your Witness Statement?
    Have you sent a copy to Gladstones?
    Originally posted by KeithP
    WS delivered to the court by hand. Court counter took it in, stamped it with the date, updated the records etc while I was there.

    Sent a copy to Gladstones by post with Proof of Postage.

    Will post it here later tonight if I can.
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 3rd May 18, 10:54 AM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    Hi All, I need to understand if the sign is forbidding.

    Sign is here https://www.dropbox.com/s/48du5wu0ydx2940/IMG_3827.JPG?dl=0

    The first section of the sign is saying that the parking is permitted for vehicles displaying a valid permit and within the confines of the bays.

    the second part says "By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you the driver, are agreeing to the following contractual terms:"

    I need to understand if/how the wording makes it a forbidding contract. I understand any such contract, if it existed, would have to have been with the driver and not the keeper, but would be good to understand the forbidding argument more clearly.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 3rd May 18, 12:09 PM
    • 3,429 Posts
    • 4,265 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    A contract requireds an offer of some goods or servcice

    Parking is permitted for.... means anyone who is NOT one of the "for" is NOT permitted to park. it is the only possible construction to come up with

    If I forbid you from doing something, I have by definition NOT offered you something. Therefore there cannot be a contract.

    Its basics of contract law. Offer, acceptance, conideration.
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 3rd May 18, 1:20 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    A contract requireds an offer of some goods or servcice

    Parking is permitted for.... means anyone who is NOT one of the "for" is NOT permitted to park. it is the only possible construction to come up with

    If I forbid you from doing something, I have by definition NOT offered you something. Therefore there cannot be a contract.

    Its basics of contract law. Offer, acceptance, conideration.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Thanks nosferatu1001
    • RM_2007
    • By RM_2007 4th May 18, 3:38 PM
    • 92 Posts
    • 44 Thanks
    RM_2007
    I won!

    Thank you to everyone that contributed.

    Case was struck out as the claimant hadn't paid the hearing fees which the court order stated had to be paid by the 3rd of April. So we didn't go into the details of the arguments.

    The judge awarded, to me, half days loss of earnings (I had put in for a full day) and my train ticket costs. He asked about the costs claimed under CPR 27.14(2)g and why I though the claimant was being unreasonable, so I took him through my WS at a high level and pointed out why I thought they behaved unreasonably and he agreed.

    He awarded the 11 hours @19 per hour in total that I had put into the costs schedule for the prep of the Defense and WS. This he agreed was a reasonable effort for the detailed defense and WS I had submitted.

    So now to wait for Gladstones/PCM to pay up. Need to look up the process from here on (if they dont pay etc).

    Finally, cant thank enough Coupon-Mad, IamEmanresu, nosferatu1001 and others who have contributed to this defense. Thank you.
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

2,284Posts Today

7,704Users online

Martin's Twitter