Parking ticket from PCM and now court threat from Gladstone Options

[RM_2007]

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.

[Advertisement]

[RM_2007]

Thats a real LBA, so must be responded to. And youve waited a few days to post it, so they may already have a claim ready to go.

Look for LBA responses.

I found a template from Gan from sept 2016

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...54&#entry12 24254

Would this be an appropriate response

"Dear Sir

Ref : ****

I have received your Letter Before Claim dated 2nd May 2017.

I deny any debt to Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited

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"

The only bit I'm unsure of is the last section of this sentence "I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid."

I assumed that this is asking how they calculated the additional £60 charge, as the PD states the LBA letter must state "what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated" but not about asking for the invoice or confirmation

Apologies for my lack of understanding - please could you advise.

Need to send this out today as I delayed in posting the LBA and now don't have many days remaining.

Thanks all.

[nosferatu1001]

If the details are correct, it is good to go

You are getting them to confirm, in writing, that actual money changed hands. It never does - its a made up figure they add in to inflate any claim.
When they fail to confirm that info, if they then go to court - and EXPECT a claim, this is the world of roboclaims - you include in the defence that the claimants solicitors were required to confirm this amount was paid, but refused to do so. You therefore thave the reaosnalle belief that this amount was not invoiced and paid, and is an attmept at "double recovery" to deliberately bypass the small claims court limits on costs.

When you send - either email, of POST FIRST CLASS with free proof of postitng./ no other method.

When yorue done, startt reading the MSE FOrum newbies thread, section "small claims", so you know the next steps. YOU must know this.

[RM_2007]

If the details are correct, it is good to go

You are getting them to confirm, in writing, that actual money changed hands. It never does - its a made up figure they add in to inflate any claim.
When they fail to confirm that info, if they then go to court - and EXPECT a claim, this is the world of roboclaims - you include in the defence that the claimants solicitors were required to confirm this amount was paid, but refused to do so. You therefore thave the reaosnalle belief that this amount was not invoiced and paid, and is an attmept at "double recovery" to deliberately bypass the small claims court limits on costs.

When you send - either email, of POST FIRST CLASS with free proof of postitng./ no other method.

When yorue done, startt reading the MSE FOrum newbies thread, section "small claims", so you know the next steps. YOU must know this.

Thanks nosferatu1001, cant thank you guys enough for all the help.

In terms of details,

it was PCM,
they didn't identify the driver,
there wasn't ticket on the windscreen,
just an NTK, the original "ticket" was for £100 but the LBA says £160 so I put £60 as the discrepancy? Assume I have understood that correctly?

[nosferatu1001]

Yes
You could also remind them that, even were POFA to apply, then the amount that can recovered is only the amount on the NtK, so £100. POFA 4(5) states this.

I am asking you if you are hapopy with the details.

[RM_2007]

Yes
You could also remind them that, even were POFA to apply, then the amount that can recovered is only the amount on the NtK, so £100. POFA 4(5) states this.

I am asking you if you are hapopy with the details.

I think I am happy with the details. First time at this stage of the process but what I've read so far on other posts and MSE, I'm happy with the details.

Added a sentence about POFA - should I quote the PAFA paragraph or keep it short?

12 May 2017

Dear Sir


Ref :

I have received your Letter Before Claim dated 2nd May 2017.

I deny any debt to Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited

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.
May I remind you that even if POFA were to apply in this case, Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) states “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).”

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





This post has been edited by RM_2007: Fri, 12 May 2017 - 12:00

[nosferatu1001]

Just remind them about 4(5) mean they are none of your concern.

If you have time, let others give their feedbasck.

[RM_2007]

Just remind them about 4(5) mean they are none of your concern.

If you have time, let others give their feedbasck.

Amended the paragraph to say "I also require an explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid. May I remind you of POFA 4(5)."

I have an hour before I can pop out so will hold of printing it out till then in case anyone else has any feedback. Their letter is dated 2nd May so assume 16th May is the end of the 14 days, so keen to get this out today to reach them by Monday - Will send First class and get proof of postage.

[RM_2007]

Posted by first class post with proof of postage. Lets see what comes back

I'll go though Coupon-Mad's post on MSE http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822.

Also this one from zzzLazyDaisy http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4754020

Thanks for all the help guys.

[RM_2007]

Response back from Gladstone this morning. Advice on how to respond would be most greatly appreciated.

For some reason Tinypic keeps deleting the second page of the letter so I've copied the text below:




Text from page 2

"Our client relies on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015. ln that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign, and accepted by the driver's actions as prescribed
therein.

The signs on the Land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which you did, the charge was properly incurred.

As the contract is between you and our client, our client does have the authority to enforce parking charges. Both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of any other contract, nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. ln any event, and without concession, our client did have authority from the landowner to operate on the land.

As you did not pay the charge within the 28 days allowed you are in breach of contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to the parking charge incurred. As you didn't pay the charge the matter was passed to us and the debt has, as a result of this referral risen as our client's staff have spent time and material facilitating the recovery of this debt, This time could have been better spent on other elements of their business. Our client believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of your breach and as such claims them as a damage. The costs are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses. Alternatively, our client does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e, the contract).

Payment remains outstanding in the sum of £160 and can be made at www.gslcollections.com. ln the event payment isn't made in the next 7 days further legal action will be taken.

Yours

Gladstone Solicitors"

[ostell]

Standard Gladstone Rubbish response. They know that E v L is not applicable, and have been told so by judges many times. The keeper was found to be the driver because of strong evidence, including forensic, that he was. Assumed does not come into it. You could ask Gladstones to provide the strong evidence that you were the driver.

You could point out that as you were not the driver then there could not possibly have been a contract between you and PCM, only between the driver and PCM.

[RM_2007]

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.

Not sure whats happened to the image of the NTK and dont have an option to edit the original post with a new link. Is it possible to edit the original post and replace the link to the image?

[RM_2007]

Hi all, I've stitched together this response from your suggestions and some responses from Gan in other threads. Would be grateful for your advice if this is adequate.

"Thank you for your letter dated 2nd June 2017. I once again deny any debt to Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited

You refer to the case of Elliot v Loakes. I’m sure you are well aware, and have been told so in many cases, that in the case of Ellliot v Loakes, the keeper was found to be the driver because of strong evidence, including forensic that he was. Unless you have strong evidence, you cannot assume I was the driver. If you have strong evidence, that I was the driver please supply it to me.

You state there was a contract between your client and the driver, however there could not possibly be a contract with the keeper. Again, unless you have strong evidence to prove I was the driver, you cannot assume your client had a contract with me as the keeper.

You state POFA 4 (4)(1), however that applies if the other conditions are met such as those stated in Para (4)(2)(a) which states that the previous para applies if “the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met”.

If you intend to rely on POFA 4 (4)(1), please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle along with proof of posting of that document. 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 which you claim includes specific authority to take legal action will be produced for the court.

Regarding the additional £60, the maximum sum that can be claimed from the keeper, according to POFA Schedule 4(5), is the amount of the original parking charge. Please state clearly whether your client intends to issue the claim against me as the vehicle's registered keeper or as the driver. A claim for an amount that you know cannot be recovered would be a breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct.

You cannot presume that your client sent all the correspondence or that it was received. Please regard this letter as a formal request under CPR 31.14 to provide all of the documents sent by your client. It should be a simple case of copying the documents.

When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response.

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully"

[SchoolRunMum]

It's 'Elliott' (double 'tt') and 'Loake' (no 's').

And I don't like the way this para is worded along the lines: 'prove I was driving', which sounds like you have something to hide...the Judge might think so (because you will get a claim, they just will).

Should be more like 'show me any evidence of who was driving' so I've suggested changes:

You refer to the case of Elliott v Loake. I’m sure you are well aware, and have been told so in many cases, that in the case of Elliott v Loake, the keeper was found as fact to be proven to be the driver because of strong forensic evidence. If you have evidence as the identity of the driver, please supply it to me.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 - 20:24

[RM_2007]

It's 'Elliott' (double 'tt') and 'Loake' (no 's').

And I don't like the way this para is worded along the lines: 'prove I was driving', which sounds like you have something to hide...the Judge might think so (because you will get a claim, they just will).

Should be more like 'show me any evidence of who was driving' so I've suggested changes:

You refer to the case of Elliott v Loake. I’m sure you are well aware, and have been told so in many cases, that in the case of Elliott v Loake, the keeper was found as fact to be proven to be the driver because of strong forensic evidence. If you have evidence as the identity of the driver, please supply it to me.

Many thanks @SchoolRunMum.

Updated the text as suggested. Hopefully ok to send now.

"Thank you for your letter dated 2nd June 2017. I once again deny any debt to Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited

You refer to the case of Elliott v Loake. I’m sure you are well aware, and have been told so in many cases, that in the case of Elliott v Loake, the keeper was found as fact to be proven to be the driver because of strong forensic evidence. If you have evidence as to the identity of the driver, please supply it to me.

You state there was a contract between your client and the driver, however there could not possibly be a contract with the keeper. Again, unless you have strong evidence to prove I was the driver, you cannot assume your client had a contract with me as the keeper.

You state POFA 4 (4)(1), however that applies if the other conditions are met such as those stated in Para (4)(2)(a) which states that the previous para applies if “the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met”.

If you intend to rely on POFA 4 (4)(1), please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle along with proof of posting of that document. 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 which you claim includes specific authority to take legal action will be produced for the court.

Regarding the additional £60, the maximum sum that can be claimed from the keeper, according to POFA Schedule 4(5), is the amount of the original parking charge. Please state clearly whether your client intends to issue the claim against me as the vehicle's registered keeper or as the driver. A claim for an amount that you know cannot be recovered would be a breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct.

You cannot presume that your client sent all the correspondence or that it was received. Please regard this letter as a formal request under CPR 31.14 to provide all of the documents sent by your client. It should be a simple case of copying the documents.

When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response.

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully"

[RM_2007]

Just realised I'd missed another "prove it" statement so amended. Will be sending this off shortly.

"Thank you for your letter dated 2nd June 2017. I once again deny any debt to Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited

You refer to the case of Elliott v Loake. I’m sure you are well aware, and have been told so in many cases, that in the case of Elliott v Loake, the keeper was found as fact to be proven to be the driver because of strong forensic evidence. If you have evidence as to the identity of the driver, please supply it to me.

You state there was a contract between your client and the driver, however there could not possibly be a contract with the keeper. Again, if you have evidence as to the identity of the driver, please supply it to me. You cannot assume your client had a contract with me as the keeper.

You state POFA 4 (4)(1), however that applies if the other conditions are met such as those stated in Para (4)(2)(a) which states that the previous paragraph applies if “the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met”.

If you intend to rely on POFA 4 (4)(1), please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle along with proof of posting of that document. 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 which you claim includes specific authority to take legal action will be produced for the court.

Regarding the additional £60, the maximum sum that can be claimed from the keeper, according to POFA Schedule 4(5), is the amount of the original parking charge. Please state clearly whether your client intends to issue the claim against me as the vehicle's registered keeper or as the driver. A claim for an amount that you know cannot be recovered would be a breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct.

You cannot presume that your client sent all the correspondence or that it was received. Please regard this letter as a formal request under CPR 31.14 to provide all of the documents sent by your client. It should be a simple case of copying the documents.
When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response.

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully"

[RM_2007]

Finally after almost 2.5 months, got a reply from Gladstones stating that

• their client has complied with POFA schedule 4 to persue me as the keeper
• No Requirement to force them to produce a PCN on the windscreen
• Agreement between landowner and their client gives them permission..
• CPR 31.14 does not apply as no procedings have been issued and suggest this is put through teh small claims track
• additional £60 is to cover their clients cost in facilitating the recovery

I'll post the sca of the letter when I get home but want to ask, are they correct in their assertion that CPR 31.14 does not apply or are they saying that to cover the fact its been 2.5 months since my request?

would appriciate advice on best wording for a reply.

Also got another "PCN" for the same place, different date... going to use the template reply from the MSE forum.

[nosferatu1001]

If they havent issued a claim, then CPR31.14 does not yet apply. So we always tell people to say that to comply with teh overriding objectives and to narrow the issues, please supply... as they can never avoid that.

£60 is rubbish, they know it. they cant claim under POFA and then pretend the limits in POFA dont apply...

[RM_2007]

Thanks nosferatu1001. My mistake with the wording.

I also forgot to put in my previous post that they did include copies of the "PCN" and the reminder and some photos taken at the time.

[RM_2007]

Scan of the letter

[RM_2007]

Hi Guys,

Any advice/suggestions on how I should respond? Any pointers would be appriciated.

Many thanks