PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Gladstone LBC, Parking ticket
Harbourgrand
post Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 10:20
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,883



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!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 54)
Advertisement
post Sat, 14 Jul 2018 - 10:20
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ManxRed
post Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 09:48
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



They will most likely claim that their contract at the time of the incident allowed them to bring an action against a transgressor in their own name, meaning that they are not actually claiming on behalf of the landowner/landholder.

I'd be asking to see the relevant part of their contract that proves this. They can redact the commercially sensitive bits. No reason why they cannot share this, although they'll resist.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harbourgrand
post Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 18:25
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,883



Thanks ManxRed! Is this something that could sit within one of my line of defence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 18:47
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



You refer to the code of practice that the claimant must have authority from the land-owner to issue the claim, and put the company to proof
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harbourgrand
post Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 18:26
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,883



Thanks redivi!!

Here is my draft defence, grateful if anyone can give me any feedback or suggestions on how it can be inproved:

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged breach of contract, when parking at Xxx

2. Any breach is denied, no evidence of a breach has been provided despite numerous requests and the defendant is in possession of an all day parking ticket amply covering the period of parking to which the claim relates.

3. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing a ticket in the grace period'. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and the reasoning for the charge.

4. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. On the day in question the defendant was xxx on a flight from London Heathrow to Bahrain.

5. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice failed to comply with the statutory wording and provide the information required by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

6. 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. A recent visit to the car park shows that the claimant is no longer the operator of the car park.

7. The Claimant has also failed to follow the Code of Practice (CoP) of their Trade Body, with regards clear signage, grace periods and their requirements in dealing with the keeper of the vehicle. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that such a CoP is effectively 'regulation' full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

8. If the Defendant is found to be liable under the POFA 2012, that law only permits a claimant to recover no more than the sum stated on the PCN. It is submitted that the added fee of £60 are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event and is an abuse of the process.

9. In addition the sum of £50 for legal representatives costs are denied by CPR27.14 and are again an abuse of the process.

10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. The defendant is keeping a note of wasted time and costs so far in dealing with this matter, with a view to claiming the loss to the defendant of at least half a day's work, and travel/parking costs and any other expenses for attending any hearing as witness for the Defendant.

This post has been edited by Harbourgrand: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 10:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 13 Aug 2019 - 07:15
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You have two 8s.

9) You hsould state that attempting to claim sums to which they are not entitled is an abuse of process and you ask the court to applythe usual sancitojn, which is to strike the claim entirely
I would then say that the sums theyre claiming - I assume they've tacked on legal fees theyre not allowed to, or debt recovery theyve never paid - are sums they know they cannot claim (legal fees are denied by CPR27.14, debt recovery ifnot pad is not a debt theyve incurred) and so, additionally this is an abuse of process. basically 2 different abuse of process
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harbourgrand
post Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 10:13
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,883



Thanks nosferatu, will have a good check of all formating when I've got my points right! Thanks for the feedback, they are asking for legal representatives costs as well as statutory interest and court fees.

I have updated the defence above, do you think it is detailed enough at this stage?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 11:01
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Court fees - of course ok
Interest - if calculated correctly this is OK. "correctly" would mean from when any debt accrues - whcih is not on the date of alleged contravention but usually 28 days after. They usually just calc from date of alleged contravention.

Legal rep costs - the ONLY cost they can claim is £50 to *file* the claim. If they are claiming any other costs for "legal" then, as told, read CPR27.14 and see what it states about small claims track and legal costs.

Dont just update. It sucks. Start in a new post. Highlight changes in red so we can see.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harbourgrand
post Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 21:10
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,883



Thanks Nosferatu, as suggested some changes below. I have left off the argument for legal rep costs as I guess this simply relates to their cost to file the claim. I have added an item about their interest charge as they failed to reply within the timescales required by the pre-action protocol. I also cannot understand their calculation for the interest costs as it’s doesn’t add up so have not commented further!

Again grateful for any feedback or suggestions.


1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged breach of contract, when parking at Xxx

2. Any breach is denied, no evidence of a breach has been provided by the claimant, despite numerous requests and the defendant is in possession of an all day parking ticket amply covering the period of parking to which the claim relates.

3. The allegation appears to be based on images by an ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing a ticket in the grace period'. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and the reasoning for the charge.

4. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. On the day in question the defendant was xxx on a flight from London Heathrow to Bahrain.

5. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the Claimant’s Parking Charge Notice failed to give the warning required and provide the information required by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

6. 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. A recent visit to the car park shows that the claimant is no longer the operator of the car park.

7. The Claimant has also failed to follow the Code of Practice (CoP) of their Trade Body, with regards clear signage, grace periods and their requirements in dealing with the keeper of the vehicle. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that such a CoP is effectively 'regulation' full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

8. If the Defendant is found to be liable under the POFA 2012, that law only permits a claimant to recover no more than the sum stated on the PCN. It is submitted that the added fee of £60 is not mentioned in the PCN terms and conditions and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event and is an abuse of the process.

9. In addition interest claimed by the Claimant is disputed as the claimant has failed to comply with the timescales and requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol.

10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. The defendant is keeping a note of wasted time and costs so far in dealing with this matter, with a view to claiming the loss to the defendant of at least half a day's work, and travel/parking costs and any other expenses for attending any hearing as witness for the Defendant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 15 Aug 2019 - 08:13
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



8 - no. You need two arguments for abuse of process.

1) The max sum that they can claim under POFA2012 is the amount ON THE PCN. No more than that is allowed. Presumably this is £100. So this isn abuse - theyre claiming a sum they are not entitled to. Dont call it double recovery. There are no "terms and conditions" on the PCN Notice to Keeper, T&C would be on th esigns. So dont mix terms up - it is confusing to the reader.
2) The £60 which I presume is called "debt collection" was never incurred by the claimant, as the debt recovery offers "no collection no fee", and so they are claiming a sum they are not entitled to and...

9) Why is this disputed? I dont understand. It certainly isnt the reason I gave you to normally dispute the interest, which is that they calc it from day 1 instead of at least 28 days later.

10) Have they EVER said the £60 was "legal service"? or anything similar? You have the documents, we dont, check back. NOT just the claim form - *everything*.

11) I dont get the final bit of this. You ARE the defendant, you are not a "witness for" the defendant - thats a nonsense. You can always claim costs of attending the hearing, loss of pay or leave is capped at £95 (yes i mean capped, you can earn £20,000 a half day, you get £95) plus mileage and parking. You can claim costs at £19 per hour ONLY IF you show they have been unreasonable, but including a costs schedule at Witness STatement stage.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 - 08:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harbourgrand
post Thu, 15 Aug 2019 - 10:07
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,883



Thank you again for the quick reply! I will update the defence later, here is a litle more information on the points you raise.

You are correct the amount claimed on the PCN is for £100. On the claim form in the particulars of the claim they claim "£60 for contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms and conditions". I looked through the t&c's from the signage and its not mentioned anywhere, which is why I worded it in that way. In their original LBC they claim the £60 is claimed by the client for its time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge. I will amend the wording as per your suggestion.

Interest - I calculated what the interest charge would be from the date of the ticket and 28 days after, up to the issue date of the county court claim form. Neither add up to what they are claiming (they are claiming 8% per annum, continuing at £0.04 per day) Their claimed amount is actually less?! The reason I put that it is disputed is because firstly it doesn't add up and in addition they have not provided requested information hence lengtheing the process and during the process have not adhered to the timescales of the PAP.

Last point is completely my mistake, thank you for pointing out the error.

Again grateful for any points or suggestions.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harbourgrand
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 09:02
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,883



Latest defence below, my attempt at incorporating Nosferatus points, again feedback appreciated...

1. The defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged breach of contract, when parking at Xxx

2. Any breach is denied, no evidence of a breach has been provided by the claimant, despite numerous requests and the defendant is in possession of an all day parking ticket amply covering the period of parking to which the claim relates.

3. The allegation appears to be based on images by an ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing a ticket in the grace period'. The claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and the reasoning for the charge.

4. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. On the day in question the defendant was xxx on a flight from London Heathrow to Bahrain.

5. ‘Keeper liability’ under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“the POFA”) is dependent upon full compliance with that Act. It is submitted that the claimant’s Parking Charge Notice failed to give the warning required and provide the information required by the POFA. Any non-compliance voids any right to ‘keeper liability’.

6. 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. A recent visit to the car park shows that the claimant is no longer the operator of the car park.

7. The claimant has also failed to follow the Code of Practice (CoP) of their Trade Body, with regards clear signage, grace periods and their requirements in dealing with the keeper of the vehicle. The Supreme Court Judges in the Beavis case held that such a CoP is effectively 'regulation' full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

8. If the defendant is found to be liable under the POFA 2012, that law only permits a claimant to recover no more than the sum stated on the PCN. The PCN claims an amount due of £100. It is submitted that the added fee of £60 for contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms and conditions is an abuse of the process.

9. The claimant also claims £50 legal representatives costs. Legal fees are denied by CPR 27.14. Attempting to claim sums to which the claimant is not entitled is an abuse of the process and court is requested to apply the usual sanction.

10. Interest claimed by the claimant is disputed as the claimant has failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol. The claimant has not provided sufficient information for the defendant to fully understand the claim and additionally has not responded to requests within a reasonable period.


11. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. The defendant is keeping a note of wasted time and costs so far in dealing with this matter, with a view to claiming the loss to the defendant of at least half a day's work, and travel/parking costs and any other expenses for attending any hearing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 09:28
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Wait

The £50 *for filing a claim* IS allowed.
What is NOT allowed is if they have ever described the *£60* as legal services.
Thats what I VERY carefully told you to check

IT is an abuse OF process. Not of THE process. You ask for the asme sanction each time viz striking out the claim.

You cannot dispute interest due to failure of PAP. YOu can dispute interest due to them unreaosnably delaying action, or for just messing up the calcualtion. So, whcih is it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harbourgrand
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 09:57
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,883



Ok, just to help my understanding can legal representatives costs be assumed to be the costs of filing the claim?

They have never referred to the £60 being for legal services at any point - they claim its for time spent and resources in facilitating the recovery of the charge. Is this acceptable claim from them?

I will remove the reference to the PAP for interest. I’ll go down the unreasonable delaying route as it took them over 3 months to get back to a request for further information. Could I dispute the interest charge as part of the witness statement?

Is it worth me having a defence point about them not adhering to the PAP (separate from interest)?

Many thanks,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 10:10
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The box on the far right, which is filled out usually with £50, is the costs of filing the claim IF they used a solicitor.
You CAN challenge this amount by getting them t PROVE a solicitor was used for the filing - and how much time was spent. You can cast doubt on anythign they say by pointing out Gladstones only has X solicuitors handlign Y thousands of claims, so they could not have spent the circa 15min to file (£200 an hour is a usual solicitor rate)

No, of course it isnt, but for a different reason - that amount was not *specified* on any supposed contract, and contracts cannot be ambiguous. They KNOW this. SO again, abusre of process.

NO.

How loing did it take them to file the claim from the date of incident? Years? If so then you dispute. WHEN did they calc from? IS THE CAL RIGHT? I keep asking this, answer the question please, its annoying to retype.
No, you cannot dispute interest at WS stage. It is a defence, so it goes in the defence?

No, adhering to the PAP is not a defence, but it shows unreasonable behaviour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Harbourgrand
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 11:52
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 14 Jul 2018
Member No.: 98,883



Thank you Nosferatu,

I will update the defence, here is the information on the timescales as previously mentioned the calculation appears to be wrong!

They claim £20.85 interest pursuant to s69 of the county courts act 1984

Ticket on 21/10/2017. Claim issued on 23 Jul 2019.. total 640 days 1yr 8% then 275 days at 0.04 per day

1 year 12.80, 275 days at 0.04 is 11. £23.80

28 days after the PCN works out at 247 days at 0.04 9.88 total £22.68

Working it back they appear to be basing the interest on date from sometime in February.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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, 28th March 2024 - 10:55
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here