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
    • subzero1988
    • By subzero1988 6th Jun 18, 12:07 PM
    • 37Posts
    • 4Thanks
    subzero1988
    Gladstones - Letter Before Claim (PCM)
    • #1
    • 6th Jun 18, 12:07 PM
    Gladstones - Letter Before Claim (PCM) 6th Jun 18 at 12:07 PM
    Hello,

    I've received an LBC from Gladstones, on behalf of PCM (The site wont let me post the image to the letter)

    From what I can remember, the fine came from parking in residential flats but I really can't remember.

    Anyhow I've been reading up on the newbie threat and various other threads regarding Gladstone LBC's and I've come across this particular thread that has a template letter to send -

    Dear Sirs,

    Thank you for your letter of x.

    When your client's debt collectors first started contacting me, I asked them for details of the basis upon which money was being claimed, including all photographs taken of the vehicle at the relevant time. Extraordinarily, I was told (in blunt terms) by [name of debt collectors] that no such evidence would be provided "until this gets to court" [try and reproduce the exact words used].


    You have now sent a Letter Before Claim. However, your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and, again, fails to provide the photographic evidence which I requested as long ago as [date - if you don't know exact date, put the month and year]. It does not even say what the cause of action is. Nor does it contain any mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, or enclose copies of such evidence.


    This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.


    Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction. Your client cannot simply refuse to provide the relevant information "until this gets to court" [or whatever they said].

    I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
    5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
    6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
    7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

    I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

    If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) !!!8211; Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information since as early as [date or month/year of first request] yet your client has refused to provide it, saying that it will not do so until this matter reaches the court.


    Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

    Yours faithfully etc.
    Is this still the most up-to-date method/best letter to send to them after receiving the LBC? And I'm guessing to not just copy and paste the exact letter, i'll write it in my own words but use it as a template to go by?

    Any help is much appreciated, thanks
Page 2
    • subzero1988
    • By subzero1988 28th Sep 18, 10:44 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    subzero1988
    Sorry what do you mean for service? I'm assuming they'd have used the same address they sent the CCJ to, and I havent moved recently.

    Its just confusing, the likihood of it going missing in the post is minimal, and now i've technically missed my chance to submit my defence, i'm just concerned that the judge won't accept my application to appeal now.
    • subzero1988
    • By subzero1988 28th Sep 18, 4:30 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    subzero1988
    Also - If i were to pay this, would I definitely have the CCJ removed from my name?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Sep 18, 4:53 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,470 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Also - If i were to pay this, would I definitely have the CCJ removed from my name?
    Originally posted by subzero1988
    Why don't you read the set aside options in the NEWBIES thread?

    Then ask us questions if anything is unclear. You didn't get the claim form so you can get it set aside, and can then defend the case, and can claim all your costs back if you win, including asking the Judge for the 255 set aside fee.

    I suspect Gs may have sent the claim to an old address the car was registered at with the DVLA - did they have an old address as well as the one they'd been using for you re the LBC?

    STOP ringing Gladstones up, if you mean you rang them, rather than the CCBC.

    If you pay it off now, as long as it's within 30 days of judgment, the CCJ will be wiped, but so will it if you get it set aside, and then if you win the defended case, you won't be paying the unfair PCN (and may get your 255 back along with your hearing costs).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 28-09-2018 at 4:56 PM.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 29th Sep 18, 2:08 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    the likihood of it going missing in the post is minimal
    Why don't you read the set aside options in the NEWBIES thread?
    I'm not sure the OP can successfully apply for a set aside. By their own admission, the court document can't have gone missing, and as they have not moved, the court would be in a position to decide they received it and ignored it.

    If they do apply for a set-aside and it is successful, can't see the court agreeing a repayment of the fee IF there has been no mistake in the service or the address.

    Looks like this one gets chalked up to bad luck.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 18, 2:49 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,470 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    By their own admission, the court document can't have gone missing,
    How come? They said they had not received it.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 29th Sep 18, 7:02 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    How come? They said they had not received it.
    The court view is BoP. Saying you haven't received it and not receiving it on BoP are two different things especially if they say/blurt out "the likelihood of it going missing in the post is minimal"

    The key point though is whether to pay early for no CCJ or risk getting a set-aside, no fee refund, and a risky second trip to court.

    It's litigation risk versus no litigation risk - or to put it a far more accurate way is the OP's financial risk higher one way or another.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • subzero1988
    • By subzero1988 3rd Oct 18, 10:08 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    subzero1988
    Thanks for your advice guys, I ended up just having to pay it and didn’t take the risk of paying the 255 to try and take it to court.

    So when I rung up I found out that I had 2 claims, the claim I just paid for was for another fine that I must have received after this claim that I started the thread for.

    So I now have a claim that’s now going to court, which I replied to the LBC, so I can now fight that one when I get my letters through from the county court and reply with my witness statement.
    Last edited by subzero1988; 03-10-2018 at 10:20 AM.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 4th Oct 18, 6:10 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    So I now have a claim that’s now going to court,
    Have you actually checked with the DVLA how many times and who accessed your Keeper data. There may be more than two.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • subzero1988
    • By subzero1988 12th Oct 18, 6:29 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    subzero1988
    Thanks, i will have a look into that. The woman at gladstones told me theres only 2 on my file, one i had to pay off as mentioned before.

    The one i have now, ive completed the AOS so i just need to start researching into my defence.

    I do have some stuff to post here when I can, gladstones reply to my LBC. I just need to see what kind of route i can go down with my defence, so ill read up and see what will best suit my case.

    How much do I have to make it my own? As in my own writing? Or am I just taking bits that suit my case? Thanks guys
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Oct 18, 6:44 PM
    • 11,319 Posts
    • 11,860 Thanks
    KeithP
    What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?
    .
    • subzero1988
    • By subzero1988 12th Oct 18, 7:47 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    subzero1988
    4th october is the issue date, im going to try and upload to dropbox what gladstones have sent to me previously
    • subzero1988
    • By subzero1988 12th Oct 18, 7:56 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    subzero1988
    Also just to post the POC -

    The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXXX (the ‘Vehicle’) incurred the parking charge(s) on xx/xx/xxxx for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Great West Quarter
    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle.
    AND THE CLAIMAINT CLAIMS
    16 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of 10.42 pursuant to s69 of the County Court Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at 0.04 per day.
    Last edited by subzero1988; 12-10-2018 at 8:05 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Oct 18, 8:04 PM
    • 11,319 Posts
    • 11,860 Thanks
    KeithP
    4th october is the issue date...
    Originally posted by subzero1988
    With a Claim Issue Date of 4th October, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until until 4pm on Tuesday 6th November 2018 to file your Defence.

    Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

    1) Print your Defence.
    2) Sign it and date it.
    3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 13th Oct 18, 5:31 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Earlier you said about not getting the claim form from Northampton but you have this one.

    Why not send a Subject Access Request to Northampton and see if it turns up only one (the most recent) posting.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • subzero1988
    • By subzero1988 13th Oct 18, 12:06 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    subzero1988
    So I matched up the refernce numbers that I had with the LBC's i received, 2 of them.

    The LBC that i replied to in this thread, matches up with the claim that im now defending.

    My mistake before was that the second LBC, i just assumed they sent the same one out again, thats why that went straight to cout because I didnt reply to it. And just completely unfortunate that for some reason i didnt get anything through from the court allowing me to defend, i just received the CCJ.

    Is this what you were referring to? Sorry was just a bit unsure
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 13th Oct 18, 1:40 PM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    My mistake before was that the second LBC, i just assumed they sent the same one out again, thats why that went straight to cout because I didnt reply to it. And just completely unfortunate that for some reason i didnt get anything through from the court allowing me to defend, i just received the CC
    Yes. Lots of people get confused with the court process, which is why they churn these claims out. Easy money.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • subzero1988
    • By subzero1988 15th Oct 18, 10:04 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    subzero1988
    Yeah and it worked with me, caught me out completely.

    This is what Gladstones sent to me in reply to my LBC:

    (www)dropbox.com/sh/635wx5qoava5xid/AAAR5zzr418ZRY9szwrxVPEVa?dl=0
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 15th Oct 18, 10:10 AM
    • 9,677 Posts
    • 12,737 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Yeah and it worked with me, caught me out completely.

    This is what Gladstones sent to me in reply to my LBC:

    (www)dropbox.com/sh/635wx5qoava5xid/AAAR5zzr418ZRY9szwrxVPEVa?dl=0
    Originally posted by subzero1988
    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/635wx5qoava5xid/AAAR5zzr418ZRY9szwrxVPEVa?dl=0

    I note Gladstones refer to the Beavis case ?
    This is a con trick giving you the false impression that ALL parking
    tickets relate to Beavis which of course they do not.
    All that happened with the supreme court is that they said the 85
    charge was legitimate .... hence it gave a licence for the 85 charge.

    Plus the Supreme Court gave licence for PPC's to clog up county
    county courts around England and Wales. How stupid is that.

    So, unless you are claiming that the charge was unfair, clearly
    Gladstones are trying to con you

    Then there is the 60 which stems from a fake Debt Collector charge

    The charge is 100 as clearly shown on the PPC ticket
    This is another try on con
    ====================================
    The Daily Mail are asking people for their stories
    editor@thisismoney.co.uk
    They already know about the Gladstones/IPC/IAS scam
    PLUS .... Sir Greg Knight MP also knows of the scam
    ====================================
    Last edited by beamerguy; 15-10-2018 at 11:07 AM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 15th Oct 18, 10:31 AM
    • 3,784 Posts
    • 6,229 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Interesting .... 3 different sets of terms. Two landowners/contracts. Which are they trying to apply and how?

    It will come down to the specifics of the bay / terms for that bay.

    They'll need a good rep.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to RTFM - the Civil Procedure Rules
    2. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend- See #1
    3. Failing to RTFCL - the Court letters
    4. Template defences that say nothing - See #1
    5. Forgetting about the Witness Statement - See #3
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Oct 18, 11:02 AM
    • 20,629 Posts
    • 32,541 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    All that happened with the supreme court is that they said the 100
    charge was legitimate .... hence it gave a licence for the 100 charge.
    85.

    100 never came into the equation - even though POPLA in all their decisions linked to 'extravagant and unconscionable' think that 'While the charge in this instance was 100; this is in the region of the 85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court'.

    An appalling extrapolation, who are POPLA to extend the parameters of a decision of The Supreme Court?
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
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

282Posts Today

1,657Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The responses to this thread are no question the best of british! https://t.co/jv5Q2ErQQC

  • RT @SMinihane87: @MartinSLewis After she received the title she addressed it in literally the first episode of the next season of the appre?

  • RT @WhichUK: ??CHRISTMAS WARNING TO PARENTS?? Don't buy any of these slimes for your kids ? they all contain potentially unsafe levels of?

  • Follow Martin