PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking ticket from PCM and now court threat from Gladstone
RM_2007
post Sun, 26 Mar 2017 - 22:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,354



Hi Guys,

Need some advice.

Back in November 2016 PCM sent a NTK to me as they claim my car was "parked within a restricted area". The area in concern is within a private estate. Image attached. I believe that the driver at the time had just stopped to pick something up and was only away a few minutes.

I ignored their demands - I appreciate that may not have been the best course of action (I need to get up to speed with the latest advice on best action to take when you get these NTK's).



I have now received a letter dated 10th March from Gladstone solicitors and wanted to check if this is a letter before county court action? and what to do if this is/isnt a letter before county court action.



Your advice as always is greatly appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Sun, 26 Mar 2017 - 22:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 23:48
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,637
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Well you could have drafted acreponse, based on what you know. For example if they have not complied with pofa, correct them.
I'd expect a claim form soon regardless of wgat you say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RM_2007
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 15:56
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,354



I now have a caim from the county court business center.. arrived yesterday, dated 06/09 with date of service being 5 days from the 6th, so I take it I have 14 days from the 11th to respond.

I think I read on the forums that I dont need my full defence statements to respond to the claim -please correct me if I am wrong.

I will need guidence to get through the calim, so any help would be most appriciated. I'll post on MSE as well to widen the readership. Thanks all.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 16:00
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,203
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You need to acknowledge the claim now using the web page and password on the form. Do not enter anything at all in the defence. This gives you an additional 14 days to get your defence to the court. This would be 33 days from the date of issue.

You need to have everything that you will be using in your defence, though not in full detail, in the defence you submit now. If you don't mention it now then you can't add to it later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 16:11
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,637
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, yo missed that if you acknowledge the claim you get 28 days total from date of service. THats on every thread.

No, you did not read that on any recent thread. Not a single one. On EVERY thread it is UNAMBIGUOUS that you get one single shot on your defence. Make it a full, detailed defence.

On the MSE forum there is a NEWBIE thread. Post 2 of that thread you MUST now read, it tells you EVERY stage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RM_2007
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 17:25
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,354



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 17:11) *
No, yo missed that if you acknowledge the claim you get 28 days total from date of service. THats on every thread.

No, you did not read that on any recent thread. Not a single one. On EVERY thread it is UNAMBIGUOUS that you get one single shot on your defence. Make it a full, detailed defence.

On the MSE forum there is a NEWBIE thread. Post 2 of that thread you MUST now read, it tells you EVERY stage.



Thank you Ostell & Nosferatu1001. Just going through the posts again. Apologies, I misquoted - I should have said I read that you dont need to put a defence statement to initially respond to the claim. I'm re-reading the MSE guide now.

1: I'll acknowledge the claim online tonight when I get home, as per the guide on MSE and as mentioned by Ostell, I wont put anything in the defence
2: Re-read the MSE newbie guide post 2 - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...16822#topofpage and start a new tread on MSE and start preparing the full defence.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 19:16
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,637
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Perfect!

Don't Contest jurisdiction unless you live outside England and Wales.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RM_2007
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 09:51
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,354



Been trying to complete the enrollment on the MCOL website without success..sad.gif not sure what is wrong but trying different browsers and will have to call them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 09:54
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,203
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



They are probably having computer problems, again ! Give it a few hours.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RM_2007
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 14:55
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,354



Website finally started working and have now managed to submit my acknowledgement.

Logged an AOS, and didn't put in any further info.

I didn't put in anything in the contact detail - assume they will get in touch via normal post.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 14 Sep 2017 - 22:56
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,539
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



You won't get anything back until you've submitted the defence by email or post (not MCOL for that).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 15 Sep 2017 - 23:47
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,637
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I never understand why people assume they will be told something extra when they acknowledge service. You're still instructed wgat to do by the form, so why wait on more?

Do your research and show us your defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RM_2007
post Sat, 16 Sep 2017 - 21:00
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,354



Thanks for the responses guys. Back at home so doing the reading for the defense.

Argumens so far:

[l
  • prohibitive 'forbidding parking' signs
  • signage print being very small - not sure about how best to word this yet but basically the signs have very small print and are high up - the one closest to where the car was stopped is about 4 meters from the ground
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 13:34
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,637
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No standing
Did they comply wih pofa to hold the keepe liable? If the drivers identity was stated as the driver then this isn't important.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RM_2007
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 16:11
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,354



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 14:34) *
No standing
Did they comply wih pofa to hold the keepe liable? If the drivers identity was stated as the driver then this isn't important.



Will check the NTK when I'm home.

I didn't understand the "No Standing" comment - could you elaborate please. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spclexus
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 16:25
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 30 Aug 2017
From: Uk
Member No.: 93,787



what nosferatu1001 says ..

This post has been edited by Spclexus: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 17:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 16:29
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,637
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Standing - they don't own the land, so can't offer contracts to park there UNLESS the landowner lets them. They lack stating un
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RM_2007
post Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 22:32
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,354



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 17:29) *
Standing - they don't own the land, so can't offer contracts to park there UNLESS the landowner lets them. They lack stating un


Thanks for the clarification.

In my previous correspondence with Gladstones, they stated they had a contract with the landowner etc, and would provide a copy to the courts - is there a way to check if they have a contract with the landowner?

Also whilst reading through the first NTK and the second notice, I found that the timings that they state differs by 31 minutes. Can I use that as an argument as well? (will post the photo's later)

Pofa and drivers identity - cant seem to upload pictures now, so will do later, but the wording on the NTK addresses me as registered keeper but then says "when this vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver agreed to pay a charge:" - although in the gladstone letters they imply I was the driver.

This post has been edited by RM_2007: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 22:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 07:16
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,637
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yes, you put them to strict proof of the contract, or chain of contracts, that goes back to the landowner. For £3 you can get who that is from the land registry, to then see if Gladstones / their client have been telling porkies.

Well of course if they cant even be certain on the timings.... does one help you, i..e means there either isnt any contravention excluding any consideraiton f grace periods, or including the required grace periods there is no longer one? You need to tell us something more....

Yes, of course they say the driver agreed to pay. They have to. they then say IF they met POFA that they can hold the keeper liable for the drivers payment. Of course Gladstones always imply the Keeper was the driver - if you dont robustly say you werent at every turn, they can suggest you were and make a "reasonable assumption" (it isn't reasonable!) that the keeper was the driver. Makes it easier on them. Your research REALLY musthave shown this common tactic!!!!

READ FIRST sticky, upload to a pic hosting site.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RM_2007
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 07:51
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,354



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 08:16) *
Yes, you put them to strict proof of the contract, or chain of contracts, that goes back to the landowner. For £3 you can get who that is from the land registry, to then see if Gladstones / their client have been telling porkies.

Well of course if they cant even be certain on the timings.... does one help you, i..e means there either isnt any contravention excluding any consideraiton f grace periods, or including the required grace periods there is no longer one? You need to tell us something more....

Yes, of course they say the driver agreed to pay. They have to. they then say IF they met POFA that they can hold the keeper liable for the drivers payment. Of course Gladstones always imply the Keeper was the driver - if you dont robustly say you werent at every turn, they can suggest you were and make a "reasonable assumption" (it isn't reasonable!) that the keeper was the driver. Makes it easier on them. Your research REALLY musthave shown this common tactic!!!!

READ FIRST sticky, upload to a pic hosting site.



Thanks for all your posts nosferatu1001.

I've always refuted that I was the driver in all my correspondence to Gladstone.

I dont believe there was any grace period. The car was parked on a set of double yellows on a private estate, which I understand isnt the same as double yellows on a public road. Also the driver was away from the car for a few minutes and definitely not 31 minutes.

Still researching on the rest - from post two in the MSE newbie sticky, found that the case to use for the forbidding parking sign is PCM v Bull. Looking for others.

Here is a scan of the first NTK



Second NTK with a different time



Here is the wording on one of the signs in the area - about 3 meters from ground



and here is the sign opposite to where the car was parked - about 4 meters above ground - how would anyone be expected to read the small print on that?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 08:53
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,637
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Dou ble yellow lines on private land have zero "inherent" meaning.

Standard PCM rubbish sign. Parking is permitted therefore it is not permitted for anyone else. They dont even mention double yellows, so there is ambiguity in any "offer" (they dont make any offer of course, but you say this because a court may decide there was an offer) and a contract cannot be formed. Usual tiny amount as well, too wordy, too far awy. Frankly if they try to claim "well you should know you cant park on double yellows", which has been tried before, state that on public roads any restrictions conveyed by signs ONLY apply tot the side of the road the sign is on - and you note this sign was many meteres away, up on the wall behind the roadway. Not clear and conspicuous as required.

Of course they will always state youre the driver, they will do it in every letter, as theyd have to change their template otherwise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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: Monday, 18th June 2018 - 13:42
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.