PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Possible court claim Gladstones private fine
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Mon, 15 May 2017 - 15:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Hello to everyone,

So near the back end of last year I had received a couple of PCNs from UK Car Park Management Ltd for 'unauthorised parking'. As standard procedure I went through SchoolRunMums advice and sent initial appeals, maybe in error both appeals in one envelope as RK from newbies sticky to this bunch using IPC template and obtaining free proof of postage and ignored any following Debt Recovery Plus letters. I have now received a letter from Gladstones wanting payment within 14 days of the letter.

What's my best course of action now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 15 May 2017 - 15:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Tue, 27 Jun 2017 - 10:51
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



This is the letter below, seems genuine.



And I've seen a few examples of acknowledgement but not sure if mine will be worded the same or how it needs tailoring?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 27 Jun 2017 - 11:14
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37,580
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



It is, read post #20


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Tue, 27 Jun 2017 - 12:34
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Can I use any template by Gan or something more specific?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 27 Jun 2017 - 21:24
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Anything that looks reasonable and doesn't give them information.

There are a couple of replies to LBCCCs shown in the MSE NEWBIES thread post #2 about court stage, have a look at the examples in the LBCCC section:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

You will need that thread, because there is likely to be a claim soon, no matter how you respond to this LBCCC.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 21:35
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Ok so after some reading I've found this:

Dear Sir

Ref : ****

I have received your Letter Before Claim dated xxxxxx

I deny any debt to UK Car Park Management

The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me as keeper.

You also cannot presume that I possess all the documents referred to in your letter.
Please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle.

When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass
Please confirm that your client's contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court.
I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.

When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response
It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully


Is that suitable for my response?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 23:38
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Yes - that will do - being pedantic as ever, Solicitor firms are normally addressed 'Dear Sirs' in my experience.

Expect a claim anyway, because G's don't just go away. Expect to win the case when defended, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 08:47
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



WITH PREJUDICE
.....
.....
I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.
The service appears to have included sending two letters on Gladstones headed notepaper that amount to False Instruments.
Your client appears to be a party to criminal acts under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 S.3 and the Fraud Act 2006 S.2
I have enclosed copies of the letters so that you can consider whether the Solicitors Code of Conduct permits you to represent the client

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 21:12
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Is that to replace a paragraph or add to the end of it? And what's the email address I can send this to? Or does it have to be posted with free proof of posting?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 21:18
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Whose idea was that...looks awful. Sorry Gan, disagreeing with you for once. Next you will be adding an accusation of breach of the Computer Misuse Act or some old rubbish that has no validity at all and just looks like posturing aggression.



This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 21:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 08:20
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,210
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I think its Gan trying to head off further GS action
If they fail to respond to the allegations, whcih are strong, theyd look pretty awkwad when you question it

It should strongly suggest to them their scam has been rumbled.

OP - it is an obvious add on para going after the non bold part of your letter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 08:34
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Read what it says - it is posturing twaddle...sorry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 10:30
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Right I understand so as follows:

Dear Sirs

Ref : ****

I have received your Letter Before Claim dated xxxxxx

I deny any debt to UK Car Park Management

The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me as keeper.

You also cannot presume that I possess all the documents referred to in your letter.
Please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle.

When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass
Please confirm that your client's contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court.
I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.

When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response
It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.

I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.
The service appears to have included sending two letters on Gladstones headed notepaper that amount to False Instruments.
Your client appears to be a party to criminal acts under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 S.3 and the Fraud Act 2006 S.2
I have enclosed copies of the letters so that you can consider whether the Solicitors Code of Conduct permits you to represent the client.

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully


Also can this be sent via email and if so to which email address?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 11:50
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



I'm happy to remove Your client appears to be a party to criminal acts under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 S.3 and the Fraud Act 2006 S.2 but leave the rest

It still achieves the important aim

In the event of a claim, the defence can include that the Claimant's solicitor was not only aware that the debt collector had sent fake documents in its own name but possessed copies

If Gladstones has passed them to UKCPM, its client knows about the deception and has come to court without clean hands
If it hasn't passed them on, Gladstones has been negligent and has attempted to mislead the court

The point can be made again at Directions Questionnaire stage when Gladstones will ask for a hearing on the papers because "the case is relatively straightforward"
It clearly isn't and you will want to question the Claimant about the letters

I've found recently that defences that draw attention to Gladstones "lack of professionalism" have a very high chance that the court will threaten to strike out the claim unless proper particulars of claim are provided
This not only makes the case unprofitable for them but immediately puts them in a one-down position
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 18:02
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,087
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
I'm happy to remove Your client appears to be a party to criminal acts under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 S.3 and the Fraud Act 2006 S.2 but leave the rest


Thank God for that, it's not your style, Gan.

Lord knows where that trash came from, laughable...

QUOTE
''Your client appears to be a party to criminal acts under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 S.3 and the Fraud Act 2006 S.2
I have enclosed copies of the letters so that you can consider whether the Solicitors Code of Conduct permits you to represent the client.''


(not laughing at anyone in particular, just at that total rubbish, whoever wrote it).


To the OP, remove that posturing stuff about 'fraud' and 'forgery' if you want to be taken seriously.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 18:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 21:31
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Yep I'll take that bit off. And not to sound stupid but then I guess that means I take off bit after about including copies of letters as I won't need to include them now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 23:04
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



NO !

Remove Your client appears to be a party to criminal acts under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 S.3 and the Fraud Act 2006 S.2 but leave the rest

The whole point of the addition is to provide a reason to send Gladstones the copies

Read my whole post again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Fri, 30 Jun 2017 - 23:36
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 74
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Understood! Just haven't had much sleep lately due to other reasons hence my lack of concentration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Sat, 1 Jul 2017 - 05:36
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,191
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Often a poke in the eye works a treat but it can sometimes complicate matters if the judge asks for clarification of something you know insufficient about.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Sat, 1 Jul 2017 - 05:41


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gan
post Sat, 1 Jul 2017 - 09:31
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,678
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Member No.: 27,239



The service appears to have included sending two letters on Gladstones headed notepaper that, unless you can confirm your own authorship, would amount to False Instruments
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Sat, 1 Jul 2017 - 14:28
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,191
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Here's a poke in the eye that will be easy enough to understand:

Sir,
Ref PCN *******
I have received a letter before action in relation to the above case and I have a strong belief that you are about to use the presumption of keeper liability based entirely upon Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films. Unless you have evidence of who the driver was, and you don't in this case, then no such presumption can be made based on those cases.

Numerous attempts to use the cases in court have found little favour with judges and have resulted in numerous charges thrown out as a result.

What this means to the Parking Management Company is that costs are racked up as a result of having to pay for legal representation and the winning defendant's costs for the day.

Not only is this an expensive way to do "business" it also makes further cases of a similar nature likely to fail without much consideration in court as judges are becoming used to the incoherent charges laid before them. You are sullying your name and may well find the judiciary instigate some legal action to have such cases strictly controlled in future. You have made you own nest......

Of course, the debt management company whoever it is you employ, should be advising you of the foolishness of taking action where they have failed so many times in the past. They should also know that the legal arguments of using those cases are completely baseless and warn you of the consequences of taking action where they are relied upon. They do not care about your own rights and seek only to gain a useful income from their incompetence and misrepresentation as they win every time regardless of the outcome to you. Doing the same thing again and again to try and obtain a different result seems not to be paying dividends for you.

Onto my specific case.
I did say that I believe you are going to tread down this same step using the cases mentioned, without any evidence of who the driver was at the time.
You had every right to invoke PoFA and properly lay liability at the door of the registered keeper but chose to use a circuitous route using that has no part to play in any Protection of Freedom or proper legal considerations.

Now, unless you have evidence of my being the driver and continue your case on that basis then you should immediately desist from further interest in this PCN and clear my personal data from your records.

To continue in these circumstances will be presented to the court as being vexatious in nature and a higher costs amount will be presented to the court. I may even add a counterclaim for the unreasonable use of my personal details if, and when the claim goes ahead from your collections company.

This letter will be shown to the court to support that higher cost claim.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 22nd February 2018 - 01:14
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.