They're trying to scare you. If you've requested a copy of the DN and they've not provided it by now then it suggests they haven't got anything. It sticks out like a sore thumb that they're trying to blah it without the crucial ace in the pack - the DN.

I'd say they'll not be lifting the stay any time soon - and even if they did, it's probably just a case of trying to pressure you even more in the hope that you break.

As DX says, take your mind off it and enjoy Christmas. They sure as hell won't be thinking about you when enjoying theirs.

Sham

Gladstones were about six weeks late with their WS in my case, and it's not the only time they've been very late. An extra day or two to get your head straight on all the points won't hurt in my view either.

Tailor your WS to your defence and their POC though - that includes lack of alleged cause of action - i.e. what are you supposed to have breached?

Can you tell me what you believe the breach to be? Is it a strictly no parking area?

You might need to also focus on what it is they're claiming you're in breach of - e.g. didn't pay, over-stayed, no permit, unauthorised, etc.

At this stage, this would usually only be found on the ticket or NTK, but not necessarily either.

If this isn't clear, then you should make that exact point - "what term does the Claimant allege that the Driver breached?".

Admittedly, if they're not relying on POFA, then the cause of action becomes immaterial, as the contract isn't with you.

What EB is saying is that you effectively show them your hand by appealing. I wouldn't worry about being seen to play ball - refer any future judge to the fact they're all linked, and appealing to them is only something the unaware would bother with.

What is the supposed breach?

What breach are they pursuing you for?

What is the supposed breach?

Puts it all into perspective.

Can you shed any light on the bit where they state about originally writing to the registered keeper and they informed them that you were the driver? What's the story there?

Phone them about what?

One of the first summary judgement related posts I stumbled across, but seems like a good place to start. There will be more up to dates ones, no doubt where Andy offers specific advice. This will get you started though.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?244926-Different-Agreement-Turned-Up-Following-CPR-Request-Urgent-WS-Needed-!

An illegible copy of the original agreement isn't going to cop it, if you know how to exploit the weaknesses in it as a foundation to their claim.

Sham

They've done that a few times that I know of. In my case, they sent both together - but they had different names on them.

I think that's still too much along the lines of a WS. Don't use 'I' or 'in my' etc. Try to write it like you're a third party looking on - "Despite the Claimant's pleading and numerous requests in respect of the need for a valid Default Notice being served, the defendant has failed to demonstrate their compliance with s.87 and s.88 of the Consumer Credit Act, and thus have no grounds for remedy of any alleged breach of the agreement." That's roughly how I would write it. You can query the balance, but the judge will ask you whether you refute it and on what grounds.

Sorry - am struggling bit for time today but will keep looking in.

Good idea shamrocker. I will search around for a thread I could use. If Andy / anyone has a link, that would be great. I'm working on a redraft. Could also post up the one statement of account they've sent?

Yes please - post it up. I'm off to bed now but will log in in the morning for a peek. I might not have much of an opportunity to comment much though due to work, but I'll try my best.

MW - if you can get hold of one of the Claimant's WS that Andy refers to above, then I'd also make a copy of that and take it with you along with s.87/88 - the point about making this bold claim of sending 20 letters without evidencing it and with you refuting it will certainly cast a little bit of doubt in the mind of the judge...particularly given the claimant's attempt to win the claim on the 'balance of probabilities'. If their representative disputes that what you're saying re. the other witness statements, you can always say that you have a copy of some in your file should it be needed to eliminate any doubt. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they've made a bold claim and not supported it with proof.

I'd like to suggest that you also challenge the balance, but can't comment too much without sight of the statement they have given. I say this because they make an attempt in their WS to brush past the possibility that some of the balance is made up of unlawful penalty charges. Working on the assumption that they've provided very few statements, I'd think about attacking this on the basis that you've challenged them on two points - 1. They've not adequately evidenced how the account balance was arrived at. 2. You've challenged them to make submissions in respect of the any charges - therefore, have they deliberately been scant with the statements so as to hide the existence of unlawful penalty charges? Again, I would need to see the statement(s) they've disclosed before I can gain a true feel for it. Are you familiar with the case for challenging £12 default charges as unlawful?

The above, in addition to your arguments around the lack of valid DN and 'reconstituted' NOA might just tip the balance in the judge's mind. They may look to find a way of allowing the claimant to get away with a non-existent DN etc. but if you can really muddy the waters over the claimed amount, it might just sway the judge to decide that the case isn't worthy of any flexibility on their part. After all, you've denied that the balance is accurate, and the Claimant has performed poorly in satisfying this aspect their claim. Just throw doubt on it from every angle you can and let them explain why they've been so crap in supporting their case - despite your pleadings and challenges.

Yes, Andy will put you straight re. the skeleton.

I don't think you need to worry too much about not including s.87/88, as you've passed the point over to Lowell to refute. I'd need to see their WS again, but I think there is scope to focus in on the fact you've made a positive assertion regarding the lack of valid Default Notice, so the Claimant is compelled to defeat that point by demonstrating their compliance - otherwise, no judgement! They've not made an ounce of effort on that crucial aspect of their claim, yet they have made submissions in respect of the agreement, balance and assignment. These are things I'd be pushing very hard. Also, you can always print off 3 copies of s.87 and 88 - take them with you and then if there are any issues raised over the relevance of these two sections as a foundation to Lowell's right to claim, then you can always volunteer to provide them for reference (don't dare bring them out without the agreement of the judge though). Just angle the argument so that it is clear and unambiguous that you've pleaded that a 'valid' Default Notice MUST be served before any action can be taken or succeed - that it's your position and belief that this obligation hasn't been fulfilled - and, given ample opportunity, the Claimant still hasn't attempted to evidence this. This is fatal to their claim. I'm sure Andy will advise on this too.

P.S. The Claimant has not denied that it's relevant in any way, so try to extract their words (or lack of) to support your assertion that this is critical to the claim.

For some reason I couldn't locate the letter itself. I've exhibited the proof of posting, and their responses. I've included the letter itself for the CPR request. I hope that'll be enough?

I don't mean the s.78 request, but s.87 - this the section of the CCA that relates to the Default Notice. s.88 is probably more relevant, as it outlines what must be included in a valid DN.

Regards your skeleton - I think it could get stuck into the main points that defeats their claim a bit quicker and stronger. Let Andy review it and offer feedback when he gets a chance to look in.

Yes, you can deliver it to the court in person. I wouldn't personally panic over getting it to the claimant within the same timeframe, and would be inclined to hand it to them before going in to see the judge. Pre-warned and all that.

Looking at your WS, you've made an assertion that a valid DN was not served on the defendant. I can't view the claimant's WS (pending approval) but I think I was able to read it last night. They have only evidenced that one was sent. They've had ample opportunity to deny your contention and make the argument that not only was a default notice served, but it was compliant with the CCA - but they've not even attempted to address that important point.

Have you exhibited a copy of CCA s.87 with your WS?

If they are making a lot of easy money because of peoples ignorance why can't they be happy with that. But no they have to be greedy and chase every penny they can and in the process cause people misery and stress. The thing is, if they get exposed in the media, especially if they loose a court case, they will be shooting themselves in the foot! Please let this happen. I firmly believe what goes around, comes around.

Because word will get out and nobody will pay them a penny - ever. Their whole enterprise would collapse. There's a fair chance most defendants will pay up upon receiving a court claim, so it makes good commercial sense to them. They've also added further fees on top, so it's money for nothing basically.

I meant the website Parking Cowboys, not the parking management companies! Sorry for not being clearer. Thanks forcthe advice.

Sorry, I misunderstood. That site seems pretty good, so is worth a read. I used some of it for direction on certain aspects of my own WS. The parking Prankster's Blog is also a very good read.

Anyway, I wouldn't fret any more over it until such time as there appears to be a claim looming. I don't think you'll have too much to worry about though.

My opinion of the parking cowboys? There is a legitimate need for them in some instances, but most of the time 'parking management' isn't their primary concern - it's to issue tickets and get cash out of us. They play on the ignorance both of the law and the civil court system to coerce the everyday person into paying up. Then you've got the role of the main players behind the scenes - it just stinks of one big racket. The DVLA are making a few quid out of it to boot.

I have no qualifications, just experience of battling my own ticket and many hours of reading up on the subject. My advice is to just ignore all 'threatograms' and enjoy your life until one resembles a letter before action - likely from Gladstons or other solicitor firm. By all means, read up when you have time, but don't worry over it. Your situation is very easy to defend, and the regular contributors on here will guide you when doing do. It's not for a huge amount compared to many of the court claims posted on, for example, the consumer credit forum - so just use it as a valuable life experience. You'll feel liberated at the end of it!

You're learning - like most of us have.

Regards only responding to the court - assuming you're not at the court stage yet (it's not been mentioned), then you should respond to a Letter of Claim, or any letter to that effect. Take advice on here first though.

Regards MSE forum - I have scanned it myself at times, but unless you know good from bad, it would be easy to heed poor advice...or at least not squeeze the potential out of the strengths of your situation. 'Some' of the advice given on there is good though. As much as fighting these issues might not be worth the hassle to many, if you want to take proper control, you really need to read and read until you understand the complexities. Whatever you do, pay particular heed to the advice given by ericsbrother on here.

Only the landowner can pursue you for trespass, and would be for any damages you caused - which you didn't. This gets a frequent mention across the forum, particularly where forbidding signage is used.

They will try to charge you for parking whatever the case. In respect of the point about 10 minutes grace - you would first push them to declare the exact breach they are claiming has led to the charge - then you twist them in any which way you can.

All this is for possible court later - no point telling it to them now as it'll not make any difference. However, my point is along the lines that you can always raise the lack of observation period (breaching their IPC code)....which they'll likely state it's because parking is not permitted.

Of course your response is that no permission equals no offer - the charge is an unlawful penalty.

Their only recourse against you is for trespass.

You need to read this stuff again and again for it to properly hit home

- don't get hung up on stuff that doesn't matter,

and let go of any ideas that the parking company have got it wrong.

They don't care about that - they just want your cash, fairly or unfairly.

From the IPC Code of Conduct:

15. Grace Periods

15.1 Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so

they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.

15.2 Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a

pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.

15.3 The reference to 10 minutes in 15.2 above shall not apply where the period of pre-paid

or permitted parking does not exceed 1 hour providing that the signage on the site

makes it clear to the motorist, in a prominent font, that no grace period applies on that

land.

This, therefore, applies to "permitted parking", and you weren't permitted to park. However, you can still use it against them to support your position that a contract could not be created as you were not offered provision of parking. You were merely trespassing, which changes everything for them.

Obviously you have not seen any of my letters, but I have spent a lot of time researching this and speaking to CAB, Trading Standards and a Solicitor and I have never heard of a 10 minute grace on speculative invoices. Is a PCN an invoice? If it is and I have missed it, so have many others and most people parking in this road do so for only the grace period.

 

I am going to ignore them now and only react if they follow the proper legal process

You'll have to trust me when I say that writing to them, speaking to CAB, Trading Standards....and unless the solicitor is clued up on private parking enforcement - you'll largely be wasting your time. These companies don't care about the rules - even if it's their own rule(s). Any excuse to slap a ticket on you and they'll do it - how else can they generate a profit?

Your situation sounds like a right mess in respect of how the parking company have handled it, so the sooner you complete the link the sooner you can benefit from having the issues narrowed down and some proper focus given to your situation.

Usually when you start writing letters of appeal/complaint to these firms, that's when they know they have you on a hook and will be very unlikely to back down.

you will get nowhere by bothering to report them. It's just a game, but you have a better hand - if you know how to play it correctly.

You've done the right thing by coming here. It will help you to focus on the important points, and not get caught up in all the morals and mitigating factors. They don't matter in this process.