Gladstone LBC, Parking ticket Options

[Harbourgrand]

Hi all, really grateful for any help with an ongoing parking ticket dispute.

The facts:

1. Received a Parking Charge notice, relating to not purchasing a ticket within the grace period. I was not the driver.

The evidence provided simply showed the time that the vehicle entered and exited the car park. No mention or evidence of when the ticket was purchased.

An all day parking ticket was purchased, I have the ticket and it is not time stamped and simply states the expiry time of 2359.

I replied to the PCN, inviting the company to cancel the charge as an all day ticket had been purchased. This was rejected.

2. I then appealed to the IAS, stating I was not the driver and that I have not been provided with any evidence to show that the terms and conditions were broken.

The appeal was rejected, with no explanation given and I did not pay.

3. Received a further “final demand for payment” which I ignored.

4. I have just received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstone solicitors that they have been instructed to commence legal action.

As suggested in this forum I have replied to acknowledge receipt of their letter, informing that I dispute the claim and have asked them to provide a compliant LBC.

Other - I have visited the parking site to view the sign with the terms and conditions and it has graffiti all over it so that it is illegible. I have a photo if this goes to court!

I suppose my question is am I going about this in the right way?

Thanks in advance!

[Advertisement]

[kommando]

Yes you have engaged with the claimant, their solicitors and used their not very independent appeal service so from a Judges point of view you have played it correctly. Our advice is never to appeal to the IPC, as you have found out they reject 85% of appeals regardless of their merits as its part of their agreement with the PPC's, water under the bridge now but remember that for next time.

This case has no merit on their side, but this will probably make no difference and a claim will be issued in the next few weeks, Gladstone's get paid whether they win or lose and its seen as a pressure tactic using the court system as a debt collector even though no debt exits and such a case will fail.

What were the grounds for the first appeals rejection from the PPC.

Also could we see the first NTK, to see if it met POFA 2012 for keeper liability. You have proof the fee was paid but if they also failed to achieve keeper liability its an extra defence as then they can only go after the driver.

[Harbourgrand]

Thanks kommando! The appeal was rejected because the ticket must be bought within 10 mins of entering the car park. Although I have not seen any evidence that shows the time the ticket was purchased. Below is the appeal rejection and the PCN.

[attachment=56640:77E0B70A...07358C5B.jpeg][attachment=56641:BDA34A4E...ABCAB92B
.jpeg]

This post has been edited by Harbourgrand: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 12:13

[ostell]

That PCN is not POFA compliant and therefore there can be no keeper liability. Here's POFA. Great chunks of the must be there section of 9 (2) are missing and therefore no keeper liability. It could be on the back of the NTK, though I don't think so, so post that if you could.

You have redacted dates. When was the alleged breach and when was the NTK received.

First of all has the driver been identified? You have stated that you weren't driving can you provide some sort of proof, even a witness statement by someone else.

You write back to Gladstones and point out that their client has failed to comply with requirements of Schedule 4 of THe Protection of Fereedoms Act 2012 to hold you, the registered keeper of the car, liable for the actions of the driver at the time.

They have:
*Failed to give the warning required by 9 (2) (f)
*Failed to disclose the period of parking as required in 9 (2) (a). Moving in front of a camera is not parking.
*Failed to identify the creditor 9 (2) (h)


The registered keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver. If you intend to make use of Elliot v Loake to claim that this can be assumed then you must be aware that this was a criminal case that proved the keeper was the driver by the use of evidence, including forensic evidence. There was no assumption. You will also be aware this has been thrown out several times by the courts when used in parking cases. Also you may intend to use CPS v AJH films to make the keeper liable. This is also not relevant or applicable as there is no employer/employee relationship in existence.

I, the registered keeper, were not driving at the time and will provide proof of the same if required.

Payment was made at the daily rate so there cannot any loss to the client and this attempt to claim is no more than a penalty not saved by Beavis.

As there cannot possibly be a debt owed by the keeper continuing further action cannot possibly succeed and would be considered vexatious. When I, the keeper, prevail, I will ask the court for all my costs in this matter because of your unreasonable behaviour in continuing when you know there is no case.

Put your response on here first for critique before you send.

It needs to be sent to Gladstones but I would be tempted to copy HX with a covering letter pointing out that the costs claimed would need to be paid by them. This would be your time at £19 per hour, the allowed rate for a litigant in person, and all you postage and paper costs. Give them an estimate of the cost. It is probably more than they could possibly hope to get back, if they would get anything back at all.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 13:06

[Harbourgrand]

Thank you Ostell! The back of the PCN is below.

The alleged breach was on 21/10/2017 with the notice issued on 27/10/2017

The driver has not been identified, I can easily prove that I was not the driver as I was on an aeroplane to Bahrain!

[attachment=56642:F0E61CD4...FD8D42E7.jpeg]

[ostell]

OK write that response to the claim, include a copy of your flight details, whatever you have and send it to Gladstones and HX (with the covering letter I suggested).

Let's see what you are going to write before you send. You could suggest a "drop hands" offer in that they stop any action and you do not claim costs.

Those POFA fails are the ones I spotted quickly, it may be worth sitting with paragraph 9 and see if you can see any other failures.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 15:58

[Harbourgrand]

Ostell, I would be grateful if you could clarify a couple of bits for me.

9(2)f failed to give warning required.

The NTK mentions “ should the keeper either provide us with an unserviceable name and address or if the named driver denies they were the driver we may pursue the registered keeper for any parking charge amount that remains outstanding on the assumption that they were the driver”.

Is the wording they use not considered to be a warning or is the point that they cannot assume I was the driver?

9 (2)a The NTK only gives the time of entering and leaving the car park. Should my argument be they should have provided the time of parking and also the time of ticket purchase?

9 (2)h failure to identify the creditor. Am I right in thinking that HX car park management limited are just the land management company and the creditor would be the land owner which has not been given?

Many thanks again for your help!

[Harbourgrand]

Starter for 10, I have largely used your words ostell! Grateful for your feedback.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Further to my letter dated 12th July 2018. I, the registered keeper, were not driving at the time. I can prove that I was on a British Airways flight from London Heathrow to Bahrain, that departed London Heathrow at 1103z.

I wish to point out that your client HX Car Park Management Ltd has failed to comply with the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to hold me, the registered keeper of the car, liable for the actions of the driver at the time. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 27th October 2017 is not POFA compliant and there can be no keeper liability.

The following areas are deficient:

9 (2) (f) - failed to give the warning required.

The registered keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver. If you intend to make use of Elliot v Loake to claim that this can be assumed, then you must be aware that this was a criminal case that proved the keeper was the driver by the use of evidence, including forensic evidence. There was no assumption. You will also be aware this has been thrown out several times by the courts when used in parking cases. Also you may intend to use CPS v AJH films to make the keeper liable. This is also not relevant or applicable as there is no employer/employee relationship in existence.

9 (2) (a) - failed to disclose the period of parking.
9 (2) © - failed to provide the facts that makes the charge payable.

The PCN lists only the time that the vehicle enters and leaves the car park. There has been no evidence provided to clarify the time in which the vehicle was parked or the time that a ticket was purchased. In addition, a ticket was purchased with payment made at the daily rate so there cannot be any loss to your client and this attempt to claim is no more than a penalty not saved by Beavis.

9 (2) (h) - failed to identify the creditor.

The PCN does not identify the creditor in any way.

As there cannot possibly be a debt owed by the keeper, continuing further action cannot possible succeed and would be considered vexatious. When I, the keeper, prevail, I will ask the court for all my costs in this matter because of your unreasonable behaviour in continuing when you know there is no case.

This post has been edited by Harbourgrand: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 19:16

[ostell]

Slightly rearranged.

Further to my letter dated 12th July 2018. I, the registered keeper, were not driving at the time.

I wish to point out that your client HX Car Park Management Ltd has failed to comply with the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to hold me, the registered keeper of the car, liable for the actions of the driver at the time. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 27th October 2017 is not POFA compliant and there can therefore be no keeper liability.

The following areas are deficient:

9 (2) (f) - failed to give the warning required.

9 (2) (a) - failed to disclose the period of parking.
The PCN lists only the time that the vehicle enters and leaves the car park, times when the car was moving and therefore not parked.

9 (2) © - failed to provide the facts that makes the charge payable.

9 (2) (h) - failed to identify the creditor.
The PCN does not identify the creditor in any way.

The driver made a payment at the daily rate, and I still have the ticket, and therefore therre has been no loss to your customer. The charge can only be a construed as a penalty that is not saved by Beavis.

The registered keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver. If you intend to make use of Elliot v Loake to claim that this can be assumed, then you must be aware that this was a criminal case that proved the keeper was the driver by the use of evidence, including forensic evidence. There was no assumption. You will also be aware, as these have been your cases, this argument has been thrown out several times by the courts when used in parking cases. I can prove that I was on a British Airways flight from London Heathrow to Bahrain, that departed London Heathrow at 1103z.

You may also intend to use CPS v AJH films to make the keeper liable. This is also not relevant, as you have found out in court for yourself, or applicable as there is no employer/employee relationship in existence.

As there cannot possibly be a debt owed by the keeper, continuing further action cannot possible succeed and would be considered vexatious. When I, the keeper, prevail, I will ask the court for all my costs in this matter because of your unreasonable behaviour in continuing when you know there is no case.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 - 08:23

[Harbourgrand]

Thank you again ostell, will get this sent and put a copy to HX pointing out that any costs would need to paid by them!

[ostell]

No, when you write to HX list your costs. XX hours at the litigant in person rate of £19 per hour, loss of wages £59 (the court rate), travel xx miles at 45p, paper and postage. Just let them know it will be expensive for them because they will be also paying Gladstones and the representative in court as well.

I've made some small changes to the suggested letter to Gladstones.

Can you also send a copy of the parking ticket you have and also proof of you ebing on the flight. A ticket stub perhaps. No need top send these to HX.

After having had a night to think about it I would send a second letter to Gladstones, in the same envelope.

Dear Sirs,

Without Prejudice, save as to costs

re your customer HX Car Park Management and your Letter of the xxxxxx and my response, enclosed

As it has now been demonstrated that your client has no possible claim against me for any alleged debt and before further costs are incurred I am making a "drop hands" offer in that no further action will be taken by you and we will each meet our own costs that have been incurred to date.

I expect a response for you by xxxxxx (give them 10 days) otherwise I will understand that you are not in agreement and the offer will be considered withdrawn.

Yours..

All letters by first class post with Certificate of Posting from your local Post Office.


This would be an admirable case for a counterclaim to be put in place to stop them withdrawing at the last minute and allow you to reclaim costs for unreasonable behaviour. I can't think of a reason for the counterclaim though. Perhaps others may like to comment.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 - 08:25

[kommando]

On the counterclaim you need to get your stall set-out now, by sending Ostell's letter from that point onwards they know their case has no merit (they knew before but now you have added non POFA 2012 keeper liability removing any doubt). So if they do not back off you start a case off with the ICO for breaching of the new GDPR regs, pre GDPR the ICO were as useful as a fart in a spacesuit but they may change tack with the new regs. With an ICO decision in your favour a counterclaim would be for misuse of personal data.

[Harbourgrand]

Thank you so much, really appreciate your help!

[nosferatu1001]

Loss of earnigns OR LEAVE is capped at £95, not £59

[Harbourgrand]

Would this be a suitable covering letter to HX?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please find enclosed a copy of my response to the Letter Before Claim received from Gladstones Solicitors in relation to PCN Xxxx. You will see that you have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and the case clearly has no merit.

I would like to point out that if this claim is pursued further I will have no choice but to seek the following costs from you:

10 hours at the litigant in person rate of £19 per hour - £190.
Loss of earnings - £95
Postage and stationary costs. Currently £6.10.
Travel mileage at 45p per mile and any parking costs.

In addition, you will be required to pay your solicitors fees as well as their court representatives costs and I will lodge a complaint with the Information Commisioner’s Office (ICO) for a breach of DPA2018.

This post has been edited by Harbourgrand: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:00

[nosferatu1001]

breach of DPA2018, which is what implements GDPR

Waaaay more than 5 hours. By the time it gets to ahearing you will have had a lot more research to do!

[Harbourgrand]

Thanks nosferatu1001, i’ve edited the above and will think even further on the hours of work!

[Harbourgrand]

So, I’ve finally received a response from Gladstone after following the advice given here.

They state they have provided a “fully complaint letter” (their spelling). They simply refer to the letter provided by the parking company where they rejected my appeal and advise that the fee of £160 is still due and that I should pay or reply within 30 days or it is likely that court proceedings will be issued.

Any advice on how I should proceed now?

Many thanks in advance!

[nosferatu1001]

Obviously
Respond back detailing all the ways they have not complied
POint out that as per.. they had 30 days to provide all the documetns you requested from them OR provide an explanation as to why they CANNOT do so. Stating documents were sent another time is not compliant

Remind them the intiial deadline of X still stands (or has it passed? 30 days from your response) and they have until 4pm on Y date to provide this response, else you will make a complaint to the Solicitrors Regulation Authority. As these documents must surely already be in their possession, at the time they took instruction, this shoudl be a trivial matter.

[Harbourgrand]

Thanks nosferatu, had a bit more time to look at this now so will get my response sent over the next couple of days.