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
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 12th Jun 18, 10:47 AM
    • 45Posts
    • 11Thanks
    TRNC
    Gladstone Court Claim - Visitors Bay - Help
    • #1
    • 12th Jun 18, 10:47 AM
    Gladstone Court Claim - Visitors Bay - Help 12th Jun 18 at 10:47 AM
    I have received a claim form from Gladstones (on behalf of PCM (UK) Ltd) for a PCN for parking in a visitors bay without a permit on 28/08/2017 (a bank holiday!).

    I have followed the newbies thread and sent an appeal (it was actually sent later than the 30 days) which they brushed off because of the lateness, I did reply saying these dates are arbitrary but from then on just received letters from the debt collector.

    I then received a LBC which I replied to using the newbies thread template but received none of the documents or information asked for and so I didn't reply back.

    The keeper of the vehicle parked in a visitors bay with the permission of a resident,however, they were not in possession of any visitor permits so these could not be placed on the vehicle.

    The signs at the site are these new PCM ltd signs posted on a thread by AoD on 15/05/2014 - as a new user I can't post the link

    AOS is done. Is there any information from the claim form which would help people contribute to my defence?
    Last edited by TRNC; 12-06-2018 at 10:56 AM. Reason: update
Page 4
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Sep 18, 2:07 AM
    • 63,872 Posts
    • 76,518 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That is the only contract they have included in their bundle. There is also a map of where there are signs (some locations are false), examples of the sites up and pictures of some of the locations of signs at the site.
    You need to attack all of the above in your WS & evidence to prove otherwise.

    They can provide a witness statement but cannot attend the court day.
    OK, a WS and the partial tenancy agreement and the email or letter that tells then they can only have 40 visitor permits would be good evidence, as it gives something tangible from the tenant even if the rest is 'hearsay' (because a WS from someone who doesn't turn up, can be taken with more of a pinch of salt).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 27th Sep 18, 9:06 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Thank you for the advice. I have now sent my WS with evidence in a folder which is numbered and formatted as they request.

    If I upload the bundle that Gladstones sent to me up here what details should I omit? Providing it is still useful to upload?
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 6th Nov 18, 5:12 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Evening - The court date for this case is due next week (15th) and I just wanted to confirm if there was a date that a skeleton argument needed to be sent in? I see a costs schedule it is 24 hrs.

    Also, not sure if this is an issue but I posted my defence and never received anything from the court to say they have it? Is this normal?
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 6th Nov 18, 5:17 PM
    • 3,769 Posts
    • 6,181 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Also, not sure if this is an issue but I posted my defence and never received anything from the court to say they have it? Is this normal?
    It's quite normal for them to lose it so take a couple of copies.

    It is also quite normal for Gladstones to claim they didn't get it so take proof of posting or a copy of a read receipt to "remind" them.
    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
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 9th Nov 18, 8:11 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Ok great, will do!

    Is it worth putting together a skeleton argument and do they have a date they need to be sent in by?
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 11th Nov 18, 11:54 AM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Here are the costs schedule I plan to send, any thoughts are welcome. Loss of earnings have been calculated as £19 x 8hrs.

    Ordinary Costs
    Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 15/11/2017 – £152
    Return mileage from home address to Court (16 miles x £0.45) - £7.20
    Parking near Court - £3.60
    Sub-total £162.80

    Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)
    12 hours Research, preparation and drafting of documents at rate of £19 per hour - £228
    3 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour - £57.00
    Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £30.00
    Sub-total £315.00

    £ 477.80 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED
    Last edited by TRNC; 11-11-2018 at 9:41 PM.
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 11th Nov 18, 10:10 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Skeleton Argument:

    PREAMBLE
    This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated 15/11/2018
    2. The Defendant has identified the following areas of dispute:
    (a) Authority to park
    (b) No contract
    (c) Prominence, illegible terms & confusing signage
    (d) Conduct
    SUBMISSIONS
    3. The Defendant admits that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
    4. The Defendant was a visitor of a resident at the location and was not trespassing.
    5. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any parking event.
    6. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed. Any purported 'debt' is denied in its entirety.
    7. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    AUTHORITY TO PARK
    8. The Defendant parked legitimately in a visitor bay, with permission from a resident at the site.
    9. The Claimant has imposed an unreasonable limit of 40 visitors per flat and charges residents for additional parking permits.
    10. There is no alternative offered during the time of residents running out of permits and ordering new ones, it is unacceptable that residents are expected to have no visitors during this period.
    10.1 The expense and onerous process of ordering new visitor parking permits has caused issues of road safety related to problem parking.
    11. Point #22 of The Claimants Witness Statement claims that “the reason parking regulations came into force was to stop people parking in other peoples bays” – this point is irrelevant as The Claiming parked in a visitor bay.

    NO CONTRACT
    12. The Claimant has provided no proof of standing. The ‘Landowner Authority Letter’ provided in The Claimants bundle is signed by a property management company, which is not, by definition, the landowner and therefore is no proof The Claimant has standing.
    13. The Landowner Authority Letter has no definitions, restrictions, details of contraventions, whether The Claimant can even enforce a permit scheme, start date or end date.
    14. The Landowner Authority Letter states that the management agent “require Parking Control Management UK Ltd to operate to the IPC/AOS code of practice” – point 17 of this skeleton argument show that this had not been adhered to.
    15. The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and it is avered that there is no agreement from the landowner that bestows any rights to The Claimant, to pursue visitors in the courts, in
    16.The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legitimate interest and cause of action, given the facts of the case. its own name.

    PROMINENCE, ILLEGIBLE TERMS & CONFUSING SIGNAGE
    17. The signs at Liberty Rise do not conform to the requirements of schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise, as follows:
    a. There are no entrance signs at Liberty Rise as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise.
    b. The signs are not all illuminated as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise.
    c. PCM (UK) Limited have no identified themselves as ‘the creditor’ (Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practise.
    18. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
    19. Point #15 of The Claimants Witness Statement claims that the signage has been audied and approved by the IPC, however, there is no proof of this and the failure to conform to the requirements stated above show otherwise.

    CONDUCT
    20. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
    21. The Claimant has refused to supply information of how the sums became due.
    22. In point #25 of The Claimaints Witness statement it is said that parking charges according to the IPC “Parking charges must not exceed £100” and also that “Where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated." The Claimaint have once again shown they are not adhering to the IPC as the amount being claim (according to the Claim Form issued on 08 June 2018) is £168.88.
    23. The Claimant has not made The Defendant fully aware of what they need to defend. The claim is vague and disproportionate to the time court needs to spend on such matters, The Defendant believes the court should use its management powers under CPR 3.3 so as to remove the burden of such template time-consuming claims from the court systems.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Nov 18, 12:21 AM
    • 63,872 Posts
    • 76,518 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    audied
    should be

    audited
    and

    Practise
    should be

    Practice
    How can you say this - below - if you are an admitted driver (which that skelly says you were)?:

    7. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Nov 18, 9:26 AM
    • 3,921 Posts
    • 4,720 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Ordinary costs - you cannot claim more tha na hald days loss of leave or pay, and this is capped at £95 - no more. You will need to take proof to the court (payslip)
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 12th Nov 18, 10:11 AM
    • 3,350 Posts
    • 2,303 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    The Claiming parked in a visitor bay.
    Not sure what this is supposed to say!
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 12th Nov 18, 8:34 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Thanks for the comments, I have edit see below. Any other advise would be much appreciated, not just for the skelly but for the court day too - I have read the newbies thread in what to expect and court reports so hopefully all will be fine. Main points of mine would be the poor signage, not complying with IPC, me having permission from resident, the craziness of 40 permits and having to pay for more, and the fact they have no proven they have permission from the landowner.

    PREAMBLE
    This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated 15/11/2018
    2. The Defendant has identified the following areas of dispute:
    (a) Authority to park
    (b) No contract
    (c) Prominence, illegible terms & confusing signage
    (d) Conduct
    SUBMISSIONS
    3. The Defendant admits that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
    4. The Defendant submits that the bright, alarmist letters were seen as a scam or spam, and recognised at the material time that they were not from an authority such as local council or the police.
    5. The Defendant was a visitor of a resident at the location and was not trespassing.
    6. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any parking event.
    7. It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed. Any purported 'debt' is denied in its entirety.
    AUTHORITY TO PARK
    8. The Defendant parked legitimately in a visitor bay, with permission from a resident at the site.
    9. The Claimant has imposed an unreasonable limit of 40 visitors per flat and charges residents for additional parking permits.
    10. There is no alternative offered during the time of residents running out of permits and ordering new ones, it is unacceptable that residents are expected to have no visitors during this period.
    10.1 The expense and onerous process of ordering new visitor parking permits has caused issues of road safety related to problem parking.
    11. Point #22 of The Claimants Witness Statement claims that “the reason parking regulations came into force was to stop people parking in other peoples bays” – this point is irrelevant as The Defendant parked in a visitor bay.

    NO CONTRACT
    12. The Claimant has provided no proof of standing. The ‘Landowner Authority Letter’ provided in The Claimants bundle is signed by a property management company, which is not, by definition, the landowner and therefore is no proof The Claimant has standing.
    13. The Landowner Authority Letter has no definitions, restrictions, details of contraventions, whether The Claimant can even enforce a permit scheme, start date or end date.
    14. The Landowner Authority Letter states that the management agent “require Parking Control Management UK Ltd to operate to the IPC/AOS code of practice” – point 17 of this skeleton argument show that this had not been adhered to.
    15. The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land and it is avered that there is no agreement from the landowner that bestows any rights to The Claimant, to pursue visitors in the courts, in
    16.The Claimant is put to strict proof of its legitimate interest and cause of action, given the facts of the case. its own name.

    PROMINENCE, ILLEGIBLE TERMS & CONFUSING SIGNAGE
    17. The signs at Liberty Rise do not conform to the requirements of schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice, as follows:
    a. There are no entrance signs at Liberty Rise as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice.
    b. The signs are not all illuminated as requested in Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice.
    c. PCM (UK) Limited have no identified themselves as ‘the creditor’ (Part E Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice.
    18. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
    19. Point #15 of The Claimants Witness Statement claims that the signage has been audited and approved by the IPC, however, there is no proof of this and the failure to conform to the requirements stated above show otherwise.

    CONDUCT
    20. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
    21. The Claimant has refused to supply information of how the sums became due.
    22. In point #25 of The Claimaints Witness statement it is said that parking charges according to the IPC “Parking charges must not exceed £100” and also that “Where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated." The Claimaint have once again shown they are not adhering to the IPC as the amount being claim (according to the Claim Form issued on 08 June 2018) is £168.88.
    23. The Claimant has not made The Defendant fully aware of what they need to defend. The claim is vague and disproportionate to the time court needs to spend on such matters, The Defendant believes the court should use its management powers under CPR 3.3 so as to remove the burden of such template time-consuming claims from the court systems.
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 12th Nov 18, 8:35 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Ordinary Costs
    Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court 15/11/2017 – £95.00
    Return mileage from home address to Court (16 miles x £0.45) - £7.20
    Parking near Court - £3.60
    Sub-total £105.80

    Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)
    12 hours Research, preparation and drafting of documents at rate of £19 per hour - £228.00
    3 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour - £57.00
    Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage: £30.00
    Sub-total £315.00

    £ 420.80 TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Nov 18, 8:38 PM
    • 10,640 Posts
    • 11,022 Thanks
    KeithP
    Have a look at this short video:

    .
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 12th Nov 18, 9:21 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Thanks KeithP - very useful!
    Last edited by TRNC; 13-11-2018 at 9:30 PM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Nov 18, 9:50 PM
    • 37,942 Posts
    • 22,052 Thanks
    Quentin
    Are your initials **?
    Last edited by Quentin; 12-11-2018 at 10:27 PM.
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 12th Nov 18, 10:03 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Yes they are, why?

    Edit just noticed -used a different website to link.
    Last edited by TRNC; 12-11-2018 at 10:11 PM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 12th Nov 18, 10:30 PM
    • 37,942 Posts
    • 22,052 Thanks
    Quentin
    Many here won't want to download from your hosting site


    You can change your user name at dropbox
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 13th Nov 18, 9:36 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    Hi all

    Any comments on my edited Skelly and Costs schedule would be really appreciated. Trying to make sure I am fully prepared.

    One thing I am slightly unsure about is my initial statement - would the skelly replace this (I gave seen conflicting answers)? If not how much detail do you go into?

    As mentioned above the main points would be: the poor signage, not complying with IPC, me having permission from resident, the craziness of 40 permits and having to pay for more, and the fact they have not proven they have a contract from the landowner.
    Last edited by TRNC; 13-11-2018 at 9:51 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Nov 18, 9:50 PM
    • 10,640 Posts
    • 11,022 Thanks
    KeithP
    Is that you full name showing on page seven on that dropbox file?

    Your vehicle reg no also appears several times, as does your PCN number.
    .
    • TRNC
    • By TRNC 13th Nov 18, 9:54 PM
    • 45 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    TRNC
    EDIT: Thanks - removed everything I could find with name, reg and PCN and reuploaded: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l372d58xnlmryy/edited_edited%20bundle%5B1818%5D-pages-deleted.pdf?dl=0
    Last edited by TRNC; 13-11-2018 at 10:06 PM.
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

2,521Posts Today

7,484Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @MarieBlackett: @MartinSLewis Someone asked me if they could ?tappity tap tap? their card once. Made me giggle! As a retail worker I get?

  • RT @NyeBeverage: @MartinSLewis I get "tap it" the most, working in a bar. "Ping it" is more common than you think, and makes me giggle.

  • When you want to pay by contactless - what do you call it - I always say "I'll just beep it". What's your phrase?

  • Follow Martin