Jump to content

squirlyline

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

4 Neutral

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Nice touch TGS! I would have put it in those terms too.. in fact I think I pretty much did on mine Interesting stuff, well done on unearthing this! This will keep the confidence going in taking them on.. and down! Would love to have seen the content in the letter, perhaps a redacted version (for liability's sake) would be good or maybe PM me .. ok just spotted the new letter you posted on the next page so don't worry unless it is signifcantly different! Keep up the good work!
  2. Congratulations, well done for sticking it out! Thanks from me too.. on getting back on this! All this extra information and points made help in future handling of potential further procedures and hearings. Particularly picking up on the fact of a lack of parking bay demarcation along the sides of the road to complement the request to park on the signage. I have not heard for a little while now, since the last threat sent with their 'case' evidence package (which is pitiful in its conviction anyway); mine is issued with only a paltry 2 mins contravention. I can't see how they can continue to prosecute at these late stages as they have evidently lost both many cases and presumably the costs of processing them for either themselves or their clients. If there is an opportunity to counter on them and it adds up, I would give it a go, they definitely deserve it!
  3. I was just wondering if there is any need to reply to this last letter (as it is not an LBA).. I presume not, or just leave it till they feel like wasting more money on the cause and send me further demands? Also just to highlight one of the contradictions I was referring to earlier; at the end of the letter it offers me 60 days to pay up and then goes on to give me only 30 days, does this give them less credence from a legal perspective?
  4. Hi again, looks like Gallstones are back for another round in the ring... it appears these guys just can't get enough being slapped around and wasting paper! In my opinion there are a couple of glaring contradictions in their cover letter to me. Plus inviting me to come in and be fined is a bit weird! They also inserted a 3rd photo of the car spanning the immense period of 2 minutes. Gladstones_demand_w_evidence_dated150520.pdf
  5. I can't imagine if they bothered to read in to the letter that they did not wonder 'what's going on here!'.. hard to know if there is bluff or wilful ignorance going on!
  6. Here's the letter I got back from UK CPM.. I wonder if they twigged!? CPM_reply to LBC replies to GS_adj.pdf
  7. I will send a copy of the 2 letters to 'UK CPM' by post on Monday (when the mobile post office shows up again anyway) without any accompanying writing!
  8. Got the slimmed-down version, thanks to dx100uk (as adjusted in my relevant post above), handed in this morning at the mobile post office; and no mention of post regulations etc. Sounds like a great idea.. that may put the cat amongst pigeons! Hopefully they may start arguing amongst themselves instead Should I send both letters to them then? And would I add something by way of introduction; something along the lines of: 'I though it may be instructive for you to know that your solictors (Gladstones) cum private parking association (IPC) are misleading their clients in what can reasonably be considered a contractual parking infraction and hence chances of failure at court. Please see copies of my two recent letters to them below:...' Also I presume to letterhead with my address and date, and print name below!
  9. Just wondering what you think of the letter I drafted above. I'm hoping to send it out in the mail tomorrow when the mobile post office arrives in the morning. Andyorch suggested that the Postal Services Act 2011 was the correct legislation for when a letter is deemed served; I presume it is still 2 days as mentioned above (I couldn't find the relevant part in it) Thanks
  10. Yes, it is the course I'm currently on, so I'm just following the prescription. I might need some further advice from dx100uk or ericsbrother on this reply!
  11. Thanks Andyorch I've had a look at the Services Act and it looks like a bit of a minefield to try and find the relevant item, I have tried to search within it to no avail. Do you think it is sufficient to simply swap out in the reply letter 'Civil Procedure rules' with 'Postal Services Act 2011'?
  12. Thanks for your replies dx100uk and ericsbrother, I am going to reply back to them in the same manner that I received from them. Here's a draft of my reply for you to approve (there may be some contentious parts that you think should not be included here): -- Dear Gladstones Solicitors / militant wing of the IPC, I am writing back to you as I notice that you have failed to acknowledge in your letter dated 17th of March '20 (received 21st March) receipt of my letter dated '9th March '20' and have instead just repeated the same LBC statements. A copy of the letter I sent is attached for ease of reference. I am quite satisfied that I have sufficient evidence to support my position that no contractual parking contravention occurred and, if necessary, will present this evidence in Court. Now, I'm sure I have taken up sufficient time of yours reading and processing this letter to require another leisurely round on the fairways. I look forward to your total denial of receipt of this letter. Yours faithfully -- BTW I am not putting a sender address on these letters; so they can't do a RTS wrong address or something
  13. Hope everyone is faring well in these difficult and restrictive times. Not sure if my last post has been viewed by advisers but am looking for advice on the best way to respond back to the solicitors reissue of the letter before claim. Thanks again.
×
×
  • Create New...