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
    • F1neF1ghter
    • By F1neF1ghter 17th Jun 18, 11:23 AM
    • 22Posts
    • 7Thanks
    F1neF1ghter
    Court pending after paying fine!
    • #1
    • 17th Jun 18, 11:23 AM
    Court pending after paying fine! 17th Jun 18 at 11:23 AM
    Hello all,

    So to sum up I live on an estate that has private enforcement by UKCPM. When I first moved in I was not told by anyone where I could or couldn't park (aside from the obvious such as in another person's parking bay, double yellow lines etc). I had NEVER parked on a double yellow area, on a paved area etc but where others were parking and displaying their permits. I then over the course of the first 2 weeks of moving in received numerous fines. I had (with photo evidence) appealed this to UKCPM but they disagreed and fined me regardless despite showing them their own signage which was directly next to where I had parked (not on double lines, or paved area and clearly displaying my permit that all others were showing) that said you can only park on non-double yellow lined areas etc whilst showing a valid permit (which I did and have pictures proving this).

    After this I then received subsequent letters from Debt Recovery Plus offering me a discount of paying 125 as opposed to 149 including 'final settlement' letters which contained 3 'fines' as the letter stated that I had at one point gained 3 separate fines all on ONE day lol despite the original fines I had received never stated that.

    Fast forward nearly a year later and Gladstones sent me a 'Total amount outstanding' letter of 149. It clearly states that the total amount of fines I owe to UKCPM is 149 and that if I pay this then I shall avoid any future court action. As this was dragging on I decided to pay it and be done with this situation as I have not been fined since living in the same area almost 2 years on.

    Fast forward 10 months on from paying this 'final' fine (and have an email receipt along with bank statement confirmation) I have now been told I owe nearly 700 including court charges etc as of the issue date of 11th June 2018.

    The Gladstones letter is the ONLY letter I have ever received and it clearly states the 'TOTAL AMOUNT OUTSTANDING' and I have not received anything else from Gladstones before or since and this is why I thought by paying this, it would be over.

    What would be the best way to go about this?

    Thank you all very much in advance.
Page 3
    • F1neF1ghter
    • By F1neF1ghter 10th Jul 18, 11:12 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    F1neF1ghter
    Cheers again everyone for all your help, will send to the gov email address via PDF then!

    So apart from that my defence above is ok? Anything I should add? Think it should be ok.

    Thanks again you legends
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 10th Jul 18, 11:46 AM
    • 2,427 Posts
    • 4,041 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    This is what POFA Sched 4 says about Notices to Driver, relevant to the issue of you receiving just ONE NtD which it is now claimed translates into 3 separate PCNs.


    7(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
    (2)The notice must;
    (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
    (b)inform the driver of the requirement to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and describe those charges, the circumstances in which the requirement arose (including the means by which it was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made those charges payable;
    (c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is;
    (i)specified in the notice; and
    (ii)no later than the time specified under paragraph (f);
    (d)inform the driver of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;
    (e)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment may be made;
    (f)specify the time when the notice is given and the date.
    (3)The notice must relate only to a single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a) (but this does not prevent the giving of separate notices each specifying different parts of a single period of parking).
    (4)The notice must be given;
    (a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
    (b)while the vehicle is stationary,
    by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.


    No separate notices were given.
    You need to include this in your defence.


    Please go back to my previous post - you need to argue those contractual points. You need to say in the alternative:
    1. There was no contract between Def and Claimant because D was granted the right to park by your tenancy - GET YOUR LANDLORD TO PUT THIS IN WRITING IF YOUR TENANCY IS SILENT, AN EMAIL WILL DO
    2. If there was a contract (which is denied) then it was not breached because the driver parked in accordance with the signage
    3. If there was a contract which was breached, any claim in relation to it has already been settled by you paying 149 in full and final settlement.


    Then include a paragraph:
    The claim relates to 3 separate amounts allegedly charged on the same date and in relation to the same period of parking. However, only one PCN was on the windscreen and this related to the period of parking on the relevant date. Therefore the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant for three separate charges, but only one (and the Defendant has in any event paid one charge already on x date). This is by virtue of both the signage (which states a 24 hour period [check it does]) and by virtue of POFA, paragraph 7 of Schedule 4.
    Last edited by Loadsofchildren123; 10-07-2018 at 11:50 AM.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 10th Jul 18, 11:50 AM
    • 2,427 Posts
    • 4,041 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    sorry just editing my post above to remove the stupid smart punctuation - I thought this only happened with mobile phones and I'm on a PC!
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 10th Jul 18, 11:54 AM
    • 2,427 Posts
    • 4,041 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    You are wrong POFA contains no such clause however UKCPM must purchase keeper details from the DVLA for each & every "offence" so even if they claim three parking "offences" in one day they must purchase keeper details three times.
    Originally posted by nigelbb

    See my post #42.
    I've just refreshed my knowledge of POFA. I was remembering the mention of "single periods of parking". In mentioning those it says that separate NtDs can be given in respect of single periods. However, in this case only one NtD was given. So POFA disallows the other 2 PCNs because no NtD was given in respect of those. And the OP has already paid for one charge.


    I wonder whether OP needs to counterclaim for his 149 back, given that he is saying it was never owed in the first place. What would his cause of action be? I think it's worth shoving it in.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 10th Jul 18, 12:11 PM
    • 1,994 Posts
    • 2,697 Thanks
    Castle
    See my post #42.
    I've just refreshed my knowledge of POFA. I was remembering the mention of "single periods of parking". In mentioning those it says that separate NtDs can be given in respect of single periods. However, in this case only one NtD was given. So POFA disallows the other 2 PCNs because no NtD was given in respect of those. And the OP has already paid for one charge.


    I wonder whether OP needs to counterclaim for his 149 back, given that he is saying it was never owed in the first place. What would his cause of action be? I think it's worth shoving it in.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Under Tort, maybe fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit.

    (If they know the driver then they don't need to worry about POFA and its requirements).
    • F1neF1ghter
    • By F1neF1ghter 10th Jul 18, 12:19 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    F1neF1ghter
    Thank you loadsofchildren123!

    I have looked back and despite it says on the court claim form 'offences taking place on the 22/09/2016, 22/09/2016 and 22/09/2016' I have found the original invoices from UKCPM and they were in fact different 'offence' dates but the issue dates were all one day '22/09/16'.

    I take it this changes things?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 10th Jul 18, 12:29 PM
    • 2,427 Posts
    • 4,041 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    what are the "original invoices"?


    IN the murky world of PPCs we usually see 2 documents:


    1. the PCN. this is stuck to the car windscreen. It is what we call the Notice to Driver or NtD. It should have the date on which it's given and the period of parking it relates to.
    In some cases there is no NtD, but only the second document (NtK, see below)


    2. the Notice to Keeper. This is the letter/notice sent to the registered keeper asking them for driver details and saying if they are not supplied then you are liable under POFA. The NtK has to be sent within certain time limits and satisfy certain conditions for the keeper to be made liable. Those time limits are different, depending on whether there was a NtD or not.


    So the claim says all offences were on 22/9. What are the documents that specify different offence dates but same issue dates?


    I think you might be talking about the NtKs, all issued on same day but in relation to different dates when the car was parked? In which case, it's not the NtK date but the offence dates which are relevant. How many windscreen NtDs did the car get?


    I'm confused!
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 10th Jul 18, 12:30 PM
    • 2,427 Posts
    • 4,041 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    If they've made a mistake and pleaded it wrong, they are stuck with that.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • F1neF1ghter
    • By F1neF1ghter 10th Jul 18, 2:43 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    F1neF1ghter
    what are the "original invoices"?


    IN the murky world of PPCs we usually see 2 documents:


    1. the PCN. this is stuck to the car windscreen. It is what we call the Notice to Driver or NtD. It should have the date on which it's given and the period of parking it relates to.
    In some cases there is no NtD, but only the second document (NtK, see below)


    2. the Notice to Keeper. This is the letter/notice sent to the registered keeper asking them for driver details and saying if they are not supplied then you are liable under POFA. The NtK has to be sent within certain time limits and satisfy certain conditions for the keeper to be made liable. Those time limits are different, depending on whether there was a NtD or not.


    So the claim says all offences were on 22/9. What are the documents that specify different offence dates but same issue dates?


    I think you might be talking about the NtKs, all issued on same day but in relation to different dates when the car was parked? In which case, it's not the NtK date but the offence dates which are relevant. How many windscreen NtDs did the car get?


    I'm confused!
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Haha same!

    Thanks for your post.

    The invoices from UKCPM themselves stated that I parked 'wrongly' on 3 different times within a week but state the issue dates for all 3 were all 22/09. However when this moved on to Debt Recovery Plus they just mention the 22/09 for each one, not the actual 'offence' date.

    This then escalated to court claim level via Gladstones and state that the claim against me is for money owed for 3 separate incidents that are ALL on the 22/09 LOL.

    Worth including?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Jul 18, 3:26 PM
    • 10,600 Posts
    • 10,984 Thanks
    KeithP
    There is nothing wrong with all three NtKs having the same Issue Date, and each one relating to an incident on a different day..
    .
    • F1neF1ghter
    • By F1neF1ghter 10th Jul 18, 3:31 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    F1neF1ghter
    Thank you Keith.

    So my defence above is all good to go in the format mentioned in the newbies thread via PDF?

    Thanks to all of you.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Jul 18, 3:41 PM
    • 10,600 Posts
    • 10,984 Thanks
    KeithP
    When you are happy with the content please re-read post #31.

    Remember, there is no immediate rush.
    Perhaps wait a couple of days for comment.
    .
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 10th Jul 18, 4:06 PM
    • 2,427 Posts
    • 4,041 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I think Gladstones have stuffed up.


    The NtKs are the documents which seem to bear the same date of issue, but all relate to parking on different days.


    Gladstones have become confused when they've pushed it through the template, and they've said that the parking events were all on the same date, which is wrong.


    So just act dumb. If they realise their mistake (which they may at the end) and try to rectify it on the day, argue they can't. If they've made a mistake, that's a matter between them and their client, but they can't expect to punish you for it by suddenly being allowed to amend their claim. You are entitled to defend the claim as you find it, ie. three charges for parking on the same day when there was only 1 PCN.


    Work this into your defence, but don't draw attention to their mistake.


    Did the signs offer a 24 hour period as Johnersh asked? If so, make this point. Make the point that there was only 1 NtD on the 22nd. So they are only entitled to pursue you for that one. And you've already paid it. Make the other points I've advised as well.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • F1neF1ghter
    • By F1neF1ghter 12th Jul 18, 2:34 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    F1neF1ghter
    I think Gladstones have stuffed up.


    The NtKs are the documents which seem to bear the same date of issue, but all relate to parking on different days.


    Gladstones have become confused when they've pushed it through the template, and they've said that the parking events were all on the same date, which is wrong.


    So just act dumb. If they realise their mistake (which they may at the end) and try to rectify it on the day, argue they can't. If they've made a mistake, that's a matter between them and their client, but they can't expect to punish you for it by suddenly being allowed to amend their claim. You are entitled to defend the claim as you find it, ie. three charges for parking on the same day when there was only 1 PCN.


    Work this into your defence, but don't draw attention to their mistake.


    Did the signs offer a 24 hour period as Johnersh asked? If so, make this point. Make the point that there was only 1 NtD on the 22nd. So they are only entitled to pursue you for that one. And you've already paid it. Make the other points I've advised as well.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Thank you so much, really happy with my defence thanks to your advice and to everyone else thank you loads! Such a fantastic community to help one another to get justice against these scum companies!!

    You are absolutely right on Gladstones screwing up, it was the first thing that came to my head when I saw the court claim doc...couldn't believe some moron approved it and yes it does in fact go against their own signs on the estate which I had snapped almost 2 years ago! Clearly states once in a 24hr period so they have royally messed up.

    I will update in due course but once again I am very grateful.

    Cheers!
    • Erudite Owl
    • By Erudite Owl 13th Jul 18, 4:22 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Erudite Owl
    I believe there are system problems with Indigo Park - there are instances where PCNs are issued where annual electronic permits are in existence. they have also recently changed the wording on the PCNs, so appeals now have to be sent to Indigo Park, and not submitted on the web address (ipaymypcn.net) they direct you to so as to "manage your PCN online" - they still have the appeal option on the ipaymypcn.net on-line form, which still informs you your appeal has been sent, but they do not recognise this as an appeal, they do not answer it, they do not forward it to Indigo, and they may not tell you until the 28 days expires, even beyond the BPA requirement to respond within 14 days. Also, not sure if anyone else has spotted, the post-date on the letters don't seem to correspond to the delivery date by a wider margin that normal delivery time...
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 13th Jul 18, 4:56 PM
    • 37,736 Posts
    • 84,744 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I believe there are system problems with Indigo Park - there are instances where PCNs are issued where annual electronic permits are in existence. they have also recently changed the wording on the PCNs, so appeals now have to be sent to Indigo Park, and not submitted on the web address (ipaymypcn.net) they direct you to so as to "manage your PCN online" - they still have the appeal option on the ipaymypcn.net on-line form, which still informs you your appeal has been sent, but they do not recognise this as an appeal, they do not answer it, they do not forward it to Indigo, and they may not tell you until the 28 days expires, even beyond the BPA requirement to respond within 14 days. Also, not sure if anyone else has spotted, the post-date on the letters don't seem to correspond to the delivery date by a wider margin that normal delivery time...
    Originally posted by Erudite Owl
    What has this got to do with a UKCPM court case?

    If you need help with a parking problem, please read the sticky thread for NEWBIES then start your own thread where you will get bespoke help.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 13th Jul 18, 5:41 PM
    • 9,261 Posts
    • 12,187 Thanks
    beamerguy
    You are absolutely right on Gladstones screwing up,
    Originally posted by F1neF1ghter
    Nothing new about Gladstones then ..... Pinky and Perky
    at their best
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • F1neF1ghter
    • By F1neF1ghter 30th Jul 18, 8:51 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    F1neF1ghter
    Hi everyone,

    Hope you've all had a great July! Just an update:

    Recevied the acknowledgement of my defence from the court and that they've passed it on to Gladstones. Gladstones have now responded with the following:

    "We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client's intention to proceed with the claim.

    Please find enclosed a copy of our Client's completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing.

    This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client's opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate. We trust you agree.

    You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. It's decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward."


    Standard Gladstones response crap I'm guessing? What would be next guys? Again my thanks in advance.

    Cheers to all!
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 30th Jul 18, 8:59 PM
    • 20,227 Posts
    • 31,901 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    All contained in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2. Bargepole explains everything about this stage of proceedings in that sticky's section.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 30-07-2018 at 10:06 PM. Reason: Predictive text going crazy today.
    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.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 30th Jul 18, 9:01 PM
    • 10,600 Posts
    • 10,984 Thanks
    KeithP
    Standard Gladstones response crap I'm guessing?
    Originally posted by F1neF1ghter
    No need to guess.
    Surely you have read this in Bargepole's walkthrough linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread:
    Note: Gladstones are currently including a 'request for special directions' asking the Court to hear the case on the papers only, without an oral hearing. You should oppose this, and include the following text in D1: "The Defendant opposes the Claimant's request for special directions, and requests that the case be listed for an oral hearing at the defendant's home court, pursuant to CPR 26.2A(3)".

    What would be next guys? Again my thanks in advance.
    Originally posted by F1neF1ghter
    Read more of post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.
    But you already know that - you've been told that several times.
    Last edited by KeithP; 30-07-2018 at 9:05 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

898Posts Today

6,789Users online

Martin's Twitter