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
    • tofts
    • By tofts 24th Jul 18, 3:57 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 6Thanks
    tofts
    Gladstones letter before claim
    • #1
    • 24th Jul 18, 3:57 PM
    Gladstones letter before claim 24th Jul 18 at 3:57 PM
    Just drafting a response, is this OK?

    --------------------------------

    I refer to your letter which is marked 'Letter Before Claim'.

    As the main electrical contractor working upon the site at the time in one of the 4 vacant commercial lots, I am unable to answer the question as to who was driving due to this being a company vehicle. With this, I also bring to your attention that I have also have sufficient evidence to prove that the vehicle was parking under instruction from your client whilst working on the site. You have already received evidence of my Permit which allowed me to park anywhere on site, generally, vehicles were parked on the upper promenade outside the area we were working but were often asked by the onsite attendants to move vehicles in busy periods so the promenade remained unobstructed.
    As there were vacant lots at the time of the alleged offense, I would consider why the charge exists at all. If they are to protect businesses from the loss of earnings, this would be difficult if contractors like myself were unable to work on the premises without this kind of obstruction.
    The vehicle was parked at various locations around the site almost continuously for around 4 weeks. As part of my disclosure I would have thought that there will be another “ticket” a few weeks after this one, I find it odd that both of these tickets have been issues in the same location and also after all of the shops were closed.

    As I had not had contact from you in many MANY months, I have considered this matter concluded.

    But, if you wish to pursue this further, I require the following details, please.


    1. An explanation of the cause of action

    2. whether you are pursuing me as (a) driver or (b) keeper?
    (a) If the former, please provide your rationale and/or evidence for the assumption.
    (b) If the latter - pursuing me merely because I am the registered keeper - please answer these specific questions:
    (i) is your client relying upon the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, and if so
    (ii) do you contend that their Notice to Keeper is fully compliant and was served in time, and if not
    (iii) on what basis are you/your client harassing me, given the fact that I am not liable under any applicable law?

    3. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated

    4. Is the claim for a contractual breach? Copy of the contract and proof of breach is required.

    5. Is the claim for trespass? Proof that your client is the landowner and the loss is required.

    6. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added.

    7. Provide clear copies of all photographs taken including a close-up of the sign on the material date, and a close-up of the terms displayed at the pay & display machine (the point of sale).

    8. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form.

    Should you proceed to issue proceedings against me without replying substantively to this letter and complying with your obligations, I will apply for an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Protocol and 15(b) of the Practice Direction and I will seek a costs order.

    yours faithfully,

    ME
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 24th Jul 18, 4:23 PM
    • 13,705 Posts
    • 14,983 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 24th Jul 18, 4:23 PM
    • #2
    • 24th Jul 18, 4:23 PM
    Is this a continuation from your earlier thread?...

    .
    • tofts
    • By tofts 24th Jul 18, 5:04 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    tofts
    • #3
    • 24th Jul 18, 5:04 PM
    • #3
    • 24th Jul 18, 5:04 PM
    Same claim, year on yes.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 24th Jul 18, 6:49 PM
    • 10,936 Posts
    • 14,497 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #4
    • 24th Jul 18, 6:49 PM
    • #4
    • 24th Jul 18, 6:49 PM
    Is this a recent letter ?

    Not surprised it does not comply to the new
    debt protocol, Gladstones are so incompetent

    They started dealing with the new protocol by
    telling people to visit their web site and you are
    under no obligation to do this.
    You want a bundle of paperwork from them

    It will be interesting to see their reply point by point
    as they do tend to duck and dive

    The government has also realised that Gladstones
    is a scam with their IPC/IAS total rubbish

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 24th Jul 18, 6:59 PM
    • 12,438 Posts
    • 12,578 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #5
    • 24th Jul 18, 6:59 PM
    • #5
    • 24th Jul 18, 6:59 PM
    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 House of Commons recently

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

    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.
    • tofts
    • By tofts 19th Oct 18, 2:36 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    tofts
    • #6
    • 19th Oct 18, 2:36 PM
    They responded!
    • #6
    • 19th Oct 18, 2:36 PM
    They have responded as follows:
    ------------------------------------------------

    Thank you for your correspondence, the contents of which have been noted.
    It is noted that you have not provided an account of your version of events as is required by the Protocol.
    Despite the above and with a view to expediting matters, please find enclosed evidence our Client may later rely on should the need for proceedings arise. We also enclose a copy of the Annex 1 Information Sheet, the Reply Form and the Standard Financial Statement.
    We trust the above and the enclosed clarifies our Client's position with respect to the outstanding debt. In the event you are still unsatisfied with the above, please find below our responses to your numbered questions below;
    1. This charge is as a result breach of contract you entered into with our Client.
    2. The registered keeper is assumed to be the driver unless they prove to the contrary. We confirm our Client is compliant with the provisions under POFA 2012.
    3. These details can be found enclosed on our Letter Before Claim.
    4. As above.
    5. As above.
    6. The charge was originally £100 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, obviously this was not done and the case referred to ourselves at the amount of £160. The further £60 charge is a nominal contribution to our Client's liquidated damages and otherwise, time spent dealing with the case.

    7. Please find enclosed.
    8. As above.
    You can make payment via our online website at gladstonessolicitors, our automated payment line of 0333 0230 049 or by using the following bank details;
    Bank: Barclays
    Sort: Code: 20-24-09
    Account Number: 33028712
    Reference: (REFERENCE NUMBER)
    When making any kind of payment, ensure the above reference is included so that your payment may be allocated. In the event a payment is made without reference, further costs may be incurred for which you will be liable.
    Payments can take up to 3 working days to clear our account.
    Please note, in the event this correspondence is neither paid nor responded to within 30 days from the date of this letter, our Client may elect to issue legal proceedings against you in order to facilitate the recovery of this debt.
    Yours sincerely
    Glacistones Solicitors
    • tofts
    • By tofts 9th Nov 18, 3:59 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    tofts
    • #7
    • 9th Nov 18, 3:59 PM
    Court Claim Update
    • #7
    • 9th Nov 18, 3:59 PM
    So, now after so exhanging of letters, I have received today a court claim. Sadly the Mcol website is experienceing difficulties but will keep checking, I presume this is a normal experience that I am to expect with an over stretched service?

    Incidently, I was reading through the paperwork and I have a picture of the sign on the site, which states no parking without permission. It does NOT SAY anywhere on this sign that a ticket must be displayed, shall I factor this in to any defence at this stage?

    The particulars of the claim are:
    The driver of the vehicle registration incurred the parking charge(s) on the (DATE IN 2017) for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXXXXXXXX. The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.

    £160 Charge £16.99 interest £25 court fee and £50 legal rep costs

    I must note that there is also a second charge they are sending me which was for about 2 weeks after this one, exactly the same place, how can I roll these 2 in to one? as Its more than likely that I shall receive a second claim shortly...
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Nov 18, 11:18 PM
    • 13,705 Posts
    • 14,983 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #8
    • 9th Nov 18, 11:18 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Nov 18, 11:18 PM
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
    .
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Nov 18, 9:32 AM
    • 12,438 Posts
    • 12,578 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 10th Nov 18, 9:32 AM
    • #9
    • 10th Nov 18, 9:32 AM

    £160 Charge £16.99 interest £25 court fee and £50 legal rep costs


    That is far too much for a single alleged breach of contract, they are being dishonest.

    Even if they won, which seems unlikely imo, the most a judge is likely to award is £175 - £200. Aything about that is unlawful. Gladstones well know this, but try anyway.

    As they are trying to claim more than that which the law allows, (imo fraud), complain to their regulatory body, the SRA.

    http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page
    Last edited by The Deep; 10-11-2018 at 9:35 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • tofts
    • By tofts 12th Nov 18, 8:58 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    tofts
    MCol now working
    Issue date on claim for is NOV 8th, I have followed the advice on thread 2 of newbies and submitted the AOS this morning of the 12th.

    Im drafting my defence today and will post this up at some point to double check all is well, on once approve I presume this be submitted straight away?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Nov 18, 9:06 AM
    • 5,007 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You did this online I hope?

    No need to submit straight away, give yourself as much time as needed to get feedback. No points for being early to reply!
    • tofts
    • By tofts 12th Nov 18, 9:26 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    tofts
    You did this online I hope?
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    i did indeed, would have done it Friday but all gateway services seemed to be down as I was trying to do VAT as well and that didn't work either!
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 12th Nov 18, 1:14 PM
    • 13,705 Posts
    • 14,983 Thanks
    KeithP
    Issue date on claim for is NOV 8th, I have followed the advice on thread 2 of newbies and submitted the AOS this morning of the 12th.
    Originally posted by tofts
    With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.

    That's over four weeks. 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 suggested 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. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    Last edited by KeithP; 04-12-2018 at 12:45 AM.
    .
    • tofts
    • By tofts 4th Dec 18, 12:32 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    tofts
    Have had a busy time with various personal issues so this has slipped my mind somewhat but we are still within the timeframe. At this Juncture, I Would appreciate some input regarding my defence with ref to this, I feel there should be more but honestly its quite simple?



    1) It is admitted that the defendant, XXXXX is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

    2) The vehicle in question was used as a runabout for materials collection and other duties to conduct electrical renovations to the restaurant "Insert Restaurant name here".

    3) Permission to park outside of the restaurant was granted via the owner of the restaurant.

    4) The onsite management team “Mainstay” issued a permit for the vehicle to cover the period of works up until Mid-July, this to cover any area on Pier/jetty 5.

    5) On numerous occasions the vehicle was asked to be moved by Mainstay to facilitate a clear and tidy main promenande.

    5) The main site permit remained in the vehicle when moved and was also accompanied by an additional ticket from the machine (Unnecessary as permission had already been given), parking in this area being free of charge.

    6) No less than three different signs have been supplied as evidence to support this parking charge. All of which have completely different terms and wording.

    7) The signage closest to the vehicle states “terms of parking without permission” and fees if broken. Permission was created and given by verbal contract by way of being asked to move to the lower levels of the jetty by the onsite management team Mainstay to prevent obstruction of the promenade notwithstanding the permit itself, there then the vehicle remained until completion of that working day.

    8) Over the course of 8 weeks, the vehicle was parked in a similar manor in this parking area several times without any issues.

    9) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

    10) I request the court strike out this claim xxxxxxxx for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Dec 18, 12:35 AM
    • 21,907 Posts
    • 27,504 Thanks
    Redx
    reads more like a WS than a DEFENCE


    check the BARGEPOLE defences and his recent posts to see what it should look like


    save the above to hone it for your WS in a few months time
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • tofts
    • By tofts 4th Dec 18, 12:42 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    tofts
    thanks for that, must be honest as I was writing it I was unsure. Must have missed a trick. Busy brain and more important things to worry about, will check it out immediately, thankyou for your help and prompt reply!
    • tofts
    • By tofts 4th Dec 18, 1:05 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    tofts
    OK, Try again. This particular defence was very relevant, I have changed various details to make it unique to my claim.


    IN THE COUNTY COURT

    CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

    BETWEEN:

    UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

    ________________________________________
    DEFENCE
    ________________________________________

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date, and had a valid permit to be parked anywhere within Pier 5.

    3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “ZIPPY” was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s) “BUNGLE” These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. There are no less than 3 separate signs used by the claimant, all of which have different particulars thus providing an unclear definition to the terms needed to park. The sign closest to the defendant’s vehicle merely states that vehicles must be parked with permission with no definition to what constitutes permission.

    6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is expressly given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    • Redx
    • By Redx 4th Dec 18, 9:22 AM
    • 21,907 Posts
    • 27,504 Thanks
    Redx
    wait for more replies but yes that looks ok to me and is what I meant and you can easily see the difference between that and the previous WS you posted
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 4th Dec 18, 9:35 AM
    • 12,438 Posts
    • 12,578 Thanks
    The Deep
    I am amazed that the solicitor is trying to mug one of its client's main contractors If the OP calls the their client as a witness surely the solicitor will struggle.

    As this is a B to B claim they could be in for heavy costs if they lose
    (hotels, Travel, meals, etc.), have you considered unreasonable behaviour costs OP?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • tofts
    • By tofts 4th Dec 18, 11:32 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    tofts
    RedX, Yes, I understand now, got a bit carried awy but cheers for the poke.

    The Deep:
    I almost think this proves that they are somewhat "robo claims".

    To be honest, I have a few personal issues that I must resolve and so this is low on my pecking order. But I have thought about it yes, I assume if this actually goes to court I will have to attend, erm, northampton? in which case I would at least like my costs returned, loss of earnings etc, but if this just gets thrown out I will be happy to let it go. Not to say I couldn't do something later I guess?
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

3,274Posts Today

5,551Users online

Martin's Twitter