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
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 15th Sep 18, 11:23 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 1Thanks
    sparkyhx
    OK whats my next move?
    • #1
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:23 PM
    OK whats my next move? 15th Sep 18 at 11:23 PM
    Hello you good people. I've been lurking for a while and pretty much got 10 months down the line following all the guides, but I've now come to a bit of an impass.

    BACKGROUND INFO
    received a parking ticket last December, we appealed largely on the grounds the signage was not clear i.e. sign at entrance referred to full conditions at pay station, which contradicted other signs elsewhere which were small, high up, and it was those that had the rule that was contravened. Namely you must buy a ticket within 10 mins of ENTERING the car park. The other sign said ticket was required for PARKING. The car park in question is very small and its usual to see people waiting for a space (i.e. not parked).
    I believe case law says waiting is not parking.
    3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014).

    There are other issues but the primary one is as above.

    HISTORY & TIMELINE
    1. Ticket Received 17 Dec.
    2. Appealed immediately and Requested further info - info was not received
    3. 22nd Dec - appeal denied - no surprise there.
    4. June 5 - LBC was received - responded to immediately and additional info was requested again (originally requested 20 Dec)
    5. July 11 - email response from Gladstones to June 5 reply - completely inadequate info from Gladstones
    6. July 25 - replied that still inadequate info from Gladstones
    7. 15th Sept (>3 months from original LBC) partial additional info supplied in an email NOT a revised LBC -
    • still not met the 30 day guide in the PAP guidelines - does it matter they did not comply with guidelines?
    • in an email not a revised LBC - should they issue a new LBC - does it matter?
    MY REQUESTS AND GLADSTONES RESPONSES
    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    Response from Gladstones - The motorist entered into a contract as soon as he parked on the land our Client is contractually obligated to manage. The contract was to park in accordance with the sign or, in the event the motorist did not wish to comply, pay a charge of £100 for the 'privilege' of parking otherwise than in accordance with the signs at the site. This payment was due imminently and by not paying the charge, the motorist breached the contract. - we are back to the original grounds for appeal here - inconsistent signs therefore unknown what I need to comply with?
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    Response from Gladstones - You are presumed to be the driver, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, until you prove otherwise. It is the registered keepers obligation to prove otherwise as it is safe to assume the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle. - no surprises there, we still haven't admitted who was the driver
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    Response from Gladstones - Our Client is not relying on these provisions.-
    no idea what this means of if the response even makes sense - any ideas?
    4. 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
    Response from Gladstones - basically don't say - they just refer to the original LBC, which doesn't actually state anything
    5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, provide a copy of that contract bearing my signature. Or is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    This has been previously addressed - ok they kinda have
    6. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
    Response from Gladstones -This is irrelevant at this stage, your contract is solely and primarily with our Client. I thought the landowner must be the client not the leaseholder - are they being evasive? or is this a valid response - should I push it under PAP
    7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    This is irrelevant. This will be provided as and when the Court orders. - Really is this a valid response?
    8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    Response from Gladstones - This is irrelevant. Really is this a valid response? or should I push it under PAP
    9. Details of the additions to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.
    Response from Gladstones - The amount of £60 is a predetermined loss and added to the original charge as a nominal contribution to the Client's losses, the time spent faciliting the debt when this is not their main duty. - valid response?
    So the ask here is what do I do next. I'm pretty sure they don't have a leg to stand on if it does go to court, bearing in mind the signage discrepancies They still haven't answered all the questions so do I just bounce them back again asking them to answer the missing info on PAP grounds?
    Do I need to re-respond to the LBC - there is no new one - so I don't see how I can?

    As a slight aside they have fixed the sign discrepancy now, but you still have to go to the paystation to see all the details - i.e. if you are waiting you still wouldn't know till too late. and then there is the case law re 'waiting' not being parking. just a thought, do the changed signs act in my favour?

    Thanks for reading
    Last edited by sparkyhx; 15-09-2018 at 11:30 PM.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Sep 18, 11:29 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:29 PM
    • #2
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:29 PM
    still not met the 30 day guide in the PAP guidelines - does it matter they did not comply with guidelines?
    in an email not a revised LBC - should they issue a new LBC - does it matter?
    Not really, as long as they are responding. The Court expects such prolonged discussions and pre-action 'evidence swapping' will take longer than 30 days - to narrow the issues.

    Response from Gladstones - You are presumed to be the driver, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, until you prove otherwise. It is the registered keepers obligation to prove otherwise as it is safe to assume the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle. -
    no surprises there, we still haven't admitted who was the driver
    Their reply is codswallop of course. A PPC cannot safely 'presume' the keeper was the driver, if it was that easy, why was POFA Schedule 4 needed, then?!

    And this is a lie:
    It is the registered keepers obligation to prove otherwise
    The POFA Sch4 creates NO SUCH OBLIGATION.


    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    Response from Gladstones - Our Client is not relying on these provisions.-
    no idea what this means of if the response even makes sense - any ideas?
    What do you think, come on! Don't ask us ''any ideas'' because it's not difficult. It is obvious. Open your eyes to what they are admitting...think about whether a PPC has to use the POFA (they don't) so what's the position if a PPC chooses NOT to use the POFA?

    Which parking firm?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-09-2018 at 11:32 PM.
    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.

    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 15th Sep 18, 11:49 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    • #3
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:49 PM
    please clarify?
    • #3
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:49 PM
    Thanks Coupon Mad,
    re 2 - if they not relying on POFA 4, - how can they NOT rely on it? If NOT then under what rules are they assum ing keeper liability? Should that be challenged?
    re 3 - my eyes are open but I still no see, can you explain what they are admitting?

    as far as I know - they appear to have followed the 'rules' to assume the keeper is liable. - but if not used POFA then on what grounds are they assuming Keeper responsible - or is that the point of your post?
    Last edited by sparkyhx; 16-09-2018 at 1:42 PM.
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 15th Sep 18, 11:50 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:50 PM
    • #4
    • 15th Sep 18, 11:50 PM
    HX Car Park Management
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 18, 12:05 AM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 16th Sep 18, 12:05 AM
    • #5
    • 16th Sep 18, 12:05 AM
    Saves my typing fingers if you read other HX threads. Try the keywords:

    HX non-POFA no keeper liability defence

    as far as I know - they appear to have followed the 'rules' to assume the keeper is liable
    You are clearly wrong, and Gladstones have told you they have not!

    ...and please, do NOT read PARKING COWBOYS website - there are dodgy links there IMHO, and the advice is old in many places. Steer well clear.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-09-2018 at 12:07 AM.
    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.

    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 16th Sep 18, 12:09 AM
    • 8,427 Posts
    • 11,085 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #6
    • 16th Sep 18, 12:09 AM
    • #6
    • 16th Sep 18, 12:09 AM
    HX Car Park Management
    Originally posted by sparkyhx
    I don't think that Gladstones fully understand what
    they are saying and HX Car Park Management are
    probably being grossly misled and can expect a court
    to whoop Gladstones / HX

    Gladstones are well known to the courts and of late,
    judges are dismissing their claims very quickly

    Gladstones have lost credibility and at least HX should
    be made aware of this
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 18, 12:15 AM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 16th Sep 18, 12:15 AM
    • #7
    • 16th Sep 18, 12:15 AM
    sparkyhx, please remove that link to parking cowboys, can't have people looking there.

    No-one here points people to that website, littered with a link we do not recommend.
    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.

    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 16th Sep 18, 5:30 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    • #8
    • 16th Sep 18, 5:30 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Sep 18, 5:30 PM
    The more I read the more confused I get. If


    Bearing in mind all the above do I reiterate my request for info, or leave it til it actually gets to court and use 'none compliance' as an argument?


    I'm tempted to re-reply requesting unredacted landowner act again. I'm a bit confused whether this is only relevant for Traspass cases or for 'breach of contract' defence as well.


    Items 7 and 8 - can they say they will not supply until court?


    If they are NOT relying on POFA sch4 - does this mean they cannot assume the keeper is liable?
    if so - so what? what does this mean in practice?


    They have 'refused copy of the contract - can they do this?
    Response from Gladstones -This is irrelevant at this stage, your contract is solely and primarily with our Client. - my understanding is they must respond? is that right?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th Sep 18, 5:41 PM
    • 9,197 Posts
    • 9,371 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #9
    • 16th Sep 18, 5:41 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Sep 18, 5:41 PM
    If they are NOT relying on POFA sch4 - does this mean they cannot assume the keeper is liable?
    if so - so what? what does this mean in practice?
    Originally posted by sparkyhx
    If they are not relying on POFA, then they cannot hold the keeper liable unless they can show that the keeper was the driver.

    What that means in practice is that if the keeper never gives away the identity of the driver, and the PPC is not relying on POFA, then they have no case against the keeper.


    Have you read post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread?

    In there you will find:
    - this is why not to name the driver (thanks to The Slithy Tove for this explanation):

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=69906180#post69906180
    Well worth reading.
    Last edited by KeithP; 16-09-2018 at 5:45 PM.
    .
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 17th Sep 18, 6:55 AM
    • 3,261 Posts
    • 5,469 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Items 7 and 8 - can they say they will not supply until court?
    You need 7 and 8 so go back to them and request it again. 8 is actually the "contract" that the driver is supposed to have breached so they are being obstructive and it should be pointed out to the court at the defence stage or the DQ stage that they the particular solicitor at Gladstones is involved in the abuse of the court process by withholding the same.

    ** Use the solicitor's name to make it clear that it may be a particular "officer of the court" that is involved in this misuse.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 17-09-2018 at 7:01 AM.
    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
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 18th Sep 18, 9:35 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    Cheers everyone, reply sent to the LBC requesting they provide the details as per my request and entitlement, I doubt anything will come of it. So I await the court summons.

    This is now the third reply to the LBC - on asking for the detail, 2 asking again, 3 the below asking again.

    Thankyou for your correspondence of 15th September
    You have once again failed to answer the questions outlined. 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) – 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 clientand 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 repeatedly requested this information since as early as 20th December 2017 yet your client has
    refused to provide it, with the latest correspondence (below) saying (ifor some requests) 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.

    1) an explanation of the cause of action
    Answer 1. This is disputed as per the original appeal re the signage was inconsistent, with the main sign
    near the Pay and Display point not mentioning any 10 minute rule. Therefore what specific contract terms
    have been entered into when there are contradicting statements.
    2) whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    Answer 2. If you are not relying on POFA Schedule 4 2012 (see answer 3), on what legal basis are you
    pursuing the Keeper, the contract (if any(defective and therefore irrelevant)) is entered into by the driver
    and it is your responsibility to pursue the driver not the keeper.
    a. To support this I rely upon the words of barrister and parking expert Lead Adjudicator for PATAS and
    POPLA, Henry Michael Greenslade, where he clarified in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 in a
    heading: 'Understanding Keeper Liability' that 'however keeper information is obtained, there is no
    reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators
    should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under
    Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they
    were the driver at the material time.
    3) whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    Answer 3. – you state you are NOT relying on the provisions of POFA Schedule 4 2012 – see Answer 2
    comments
    4) 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
    Answer 4. – Inadequate response
    a. You do not break down how the cost has been arrived at
    b. You have been asked to provide the evidence of when a ticket was bought for the vehicle in
    question. This the client clearly has in their possession and is relevant to the assessment for breach
    of contract (if any)
    5) Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, provide a copy of that contract bearing my signature. Or is the
    claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    Answer 5 – satisfactory
    6) a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required
    by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
    Answer 6 – totally unsatisfactory.
    a. I asked for a copy of the contract with the landowner (I believe to be Due West Limited
    (Incorporated in Cayman Islands B.W.I.)) permitting the client to operate on their land. You have
    failed to do so. I must therefore assert that the Claimant has no Locus Standi to bring this claim
    because:
    i. The party HX Car Park Management Limited in the Parking Contract, is claimed has the right
    to grant the rights in the Parking Contract. HX Car Park Management Limited is not the
    landowner or another entity proven to be authorised by the landowner. No proof of a
    formal agreement between the landowner Due West Limited (Incorporated in Cayman
    Islands B.W.I.) and HX Car Park Management Limited has been provided by the Claimant and
    therefore the Claimant has failed to establish an express conferral of rights has taken place
    pursuant to Section 1(1)(a) and 1(3) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 which
    require terms to identify the Claimant and express terms granting the Claimant the right to
    enforce the contract; or the right to sue.
    b. Secondly your answer refers to contract between HX Parking (your Client). There is an alleged
    breach of contract with the driver (glad you acknowledge it is the driver not the keeper) so the
    details of the contract are 100% relevant, however as mentioned above the signs are inconsistent,
    so please provide the full details of the contract allegedly entered into and a reason why the signs
    were contradictory, with the main sign by the Pay and Display machine not mentioning the terms
    allegedly breached .
    c. So please provide details of both unredacted contracts as I am clearly entitled to such under
    paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction.
    7) a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    Answer 7 - This is not irrelevant and cannot be deferred until the court case as it will inform my defence, and
    I am entitled to it under the Practice Direction. So please supply requested documentation
    8) details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    Answer 8 – This is NOT irrelevant, as readability and location of signs is fundamental to whether your client
    has followed IPC guidelines. So please supply requested information as per the Practice Direction
    9) Details of the additions to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.
    Answer 9 – Insufficient detail to determine how the cost was calculated – please supply requested
    breakdown information requested as per the Practice Direction
    Regards
    Last edited by sparkyhx; Yesterday at 10:04 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Sep 18, 9:36 PM
    • 61,458 Posts
    • 74,344 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's unreadable due to copy/pasting.

    But why not make it MUCH shorter this time, no waffle?
    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.

    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 18th Sep 18, 9:38 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    hmm - tis a bit - let me tidy it up
    • sparkyhx
    • By sparkyhx 18th Sep 18, 10:05 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    sparkyhx
    tidied up in-situ
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

2,102Posts Today

8,517Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Dora_Haf: @MartinSLewis So many people on here saying they're great until you get your PROPER job. What if Your proper job Is ON zero?

  • RT @hslt88: @MartinSLewis I?m a trustee for a youth charity. We only have a limited pool of funds for flexible youth workers for holiday sc?

  • RT @Dan_i_elle_88: @MartinSLewis Loved working zero hour agency care work. Never out of work and I loved having the flexibility! Only left?

  • Follow Martin