Jump to content


narrox

SIP/Gladstone claimform - PCN Clippers Quay in Salford **WON+COSTS** not paid bailiffs afoot!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 844 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

you write to the court that you have been told is now processing this claim.

 

 

The clerks there will then add it to your file and pass it to the judge at a time they think is appropriate.

This may get you a speedy response or it may just sit in the file and not get read until the day of the hearing.

Depends on how busy everyone is and how important it seems to the person handling the files.

 

I have had cases where the case managemt has lead to 3 CM conferences and other, where strike out has been asked for got nothing until the day of the court hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm drafting a letter up now however looking at the Parking Pranksters blog how can I refer to a case if the defendants name and reference number are obscured?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is public information, you can ask the courts service for the data. Alternatively ask Alex if he can tell you, he doesnt have any reason not to. The court and the date of the hearing will identify this along with the claimants name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, is there any requirement to cc a copy to Gladstones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

certainly not but you should include it in your evidence bundle for exchange of documents if it gets that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all,

 

I seem to be hitting a road block at the moment,

 

the court clerk wasn't particularly helpful

she said they don;t give out such information regarding other cases (reference numbers),

 

cant seem to get a response from Parking Prankster; not really sure where to turn now.

 

Should I just send of the bits of information I have regarding other cases along with a note explaining?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Latest update, managed to get together the info.

I received the courts request advising for the case to be dealt with on the papers, which of course I rejected along with an attachment requesting the court to dismiss the case.

 

I referenced directions from other similar cases that have been struck out for similar reasons.

 

Cant wait for this to be over, what a headache!

 

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Happy New Year!

 

Thanks for your continued advice and patience, this is the latest from the courts and an email from sadstones.

 

Any advice would be appreciate RE - defending the POC again.

POC+NOA.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so we have to revisit whether the original NTK is POFA compliant as they mention the POFA.

 

If they didnt get it right the first time round they cant claim it here.

you will need to reiterate this

 

have you been given a date for the hearing yet?

 

you should start collating all of your paperwork and set about writing a witness statement.

 

have a look at some other recent threads to see the kind of things you should be doing.

 

the parking prankster has some super off the shelf parts that deal with specific points so read them as well. When you have done a draft put it up here and we will ahve a look.

 

You will need paper copies of all the other things you want to rely on, including the POFA (govt website) and references for other similar cases. the claim no, parties involved, court, date and the judge will all need to be shown along with brief descriptionof the case and why it is relevant or it will be ignored.

 

they are claiming add ons as part of a breach of contract but they say that the sum is due as a contracual charge. It cant be both se query this. At worst, you will then only have to pay £50+ court fee and not the stupid add ons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are those Particulars of Claim the new ones (to be submitted by SIP before 14th Jan), or are they a copy of the old ones that the Judge has ordered to be struck out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the second set of POC's from Gladstones after the previous were struck out,

 

 

I have attached the letter which requested the strike out. I've also re-attached the NTK.

 

They state 'Invalid Ticket Displayed' could one of my points argue that they have been unable to demonstrate why the ticket was invalid?

 

I sent a CPR 31.14 request which was ignored and also a letter denying any contract was offered which also had no response.

 

 

Im planning to go for that they have failed to show locus standi and cause for action under a CPR31.14 request followed by CPR 27 full costs recovery.

 

With the signage being an invitation to treat, surely the argument of a contractual breach is unjust.

 

 

I have attached the entrance sign to the carpark, the only mention of a 'contract' are the signs within the car park that you can see once you have parked.

 

Thanks

IMG_2327.jpg

Request Strike Out.pdf

IMG_2304.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an invitation to treat means that they have to rely on somehting else to offer and form a contract by acceptance of the terms offered.

 

 

This would be the T&c's on the ticket machine and so as soon as you put money in the machine you have accepted that contract offered.

 

 

If there is a problem with their machine that doesnt mean you have breached the contract,

at worst it means the contract is voided and you can park anyway as the contract would be "frustrated".

 

did their machine issue the ticket? obviously yes.

 

Did you deliberately enter the wrong details?

presumably no

 

apart from not saying how their ticket can be invalid and still cause a breach of contract

 

we are then back to what exactly the ticket machine contract terms are and whether they are enforceable or fair

(in terms of the law so read up on unfair contract terms).

 

Logic dictates that as they use the word invalid this does not refer to expired, out of date or forged, whcih should then have a different cause for action on the POC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so this is my defence,

 

Im thinking of going for full cost recovery too?

 

The defendant neither claims to be or not to be the driver of the vehicle

 

The defendant confirms he is the registered keeper of the vehicle

 

3. The Claimant has failed to comply with the conditions for recovery the charge under Schedule 4 the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 4 8, 2 (g) in order to create keeper liability the notice must;

 

“inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;”

 

The notice does not provide any information regarding discount for prompt repayment or provide arrangements for disputes, (figure 1) as such the notice does not comply and the keeper cannot be pursued for any unpaid ‘charges’

 

It should also be brought to the attention of the courts that SIP Parking is a registered operator of the IPC (International Parking Committee) an accredited trade associating in the private parking sector. The IPC outlines a strict code of practice for all operators Part C 3.1 (m) also states that The Notice to the Keeper must;

 

“Inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for resolution of disputes or complaints available to the keeper including; Any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and The arrangements under which disputes or complaints may be referred by the keeper to The IPC” (figure 2)

 

As the claimant has not complied with the requirements outlined by the IPC’s code of practice the keeper of the vehicle cannot be held accountable.

 

4. Invalid Ticket, does not refer to expired, out of date or forged as such a different cause of action should be detailed on the particulars.

 

5. The claimant claims add ons as part of a breach of contract but the sum is due as a contractual charge, the defendant disputes this.

 

6. The particulars of claim are invalid Under CPR 16.4 (2) (a) (iv) as should the claimant claim for interest the particulars must include;

 

‘the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation”

 

 

7. The claimant has not show cause for action and locus standi by way of CPR 31.14 request.

 

The defendant sent a letter dated 18th August 2016 stating that no contract was offered as the signage is not a contract but an invitation to treat as such no monies are due, this went unacknowledged.

 

The defendant sent a letter dated 15th September 2016 regarding a CPR 31.14 request this went unacknowledged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO line 1 goes


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont use the neither claims or denies ishy washy rubbish.

You will be absolutely destoryed by a judge if you use that,

there are other posts on here who tried and got shot down in flames.

You know if you were or werent, it is not the same as refusing to name the driver.

 

Where you say the claimnt has add ons (5) look up better wording, my use of this was to enable you to see that the claim chould be £100 or whatever and their extras are unlawful

but it is for you to look at other cases where this has been knocked back and quote them

 

(6) they are not invalid, they are either incorrect or too vague to show a cause for action

 

( 7) say what was in the CPR 31 request,

namely the proof of the assignment of the right to enter into contracts and to make claims IN THEIR OWN NAME. You must spell these things out.

 

 

Brevity was for the defence when you got the claim,

here you add or refer to the signs,

the contracts,

the palling consent if applicable,

other cases where they lost as this place,

other relvant cases where signage is the key points,

failure to follow the POFA to the latter

 

 

and include a copy of the POFA so you can go through it line by line

( you had better learn this off by heart)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice, I shall amend as per your advice.

 

Quick question, Gladdys never sent their new POC's via post, only to my email which they will have seen through MCOL, is this correct service of documents as I have never stated to have documents served this way.

 

Funny considering their email signature strictly states they do NOT accept service of document via email!

 

Do I have grounds to say that the documents haven't been served at all / correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no they wont have seen it through mcol.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when I completed the MCOL statement there was a form before submitting and a space for my email address, shortly after submitting it I received an email from them with the direction questionnaire, there is nowhere else they could have possible got it.

 

I was surprised at the time as I didn't think they would see those details, if not then surely those particulars have not been served correctly then as I have never communicated with them via email!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they may well be trying to mislead you by pretending they have served new docs.

You will need to check with the courts service.

 

Email is considered to be a proper form of service so when they say they dont accept emails then they are either trying to mislead you or they are just terrible hypocrites.

 

 

Thanks for the advice, I shall amend as per your advice.

 

Quick question, Gladdys never sent their new POC's via post, only to my email which they will have seen through MCOL, is this correct service of documents as I have never stated to have documents served this way.

 

Funny considering their email signature strictly states they do NOT accept service of document via email!

 

Do I have grounds to say that the documents haven't been served at all / correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats ericsbrother, looking at the sign that I uploaded (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64098&d=1471347064)

 

Am I right to say that there is no expressed indemnity clause in the 'contract' as Gladstones say there is but I can't see any mention of it on the sign, therefore can this considered to be a vexatious claim?

 

Thanks for your continued support!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows this for a full defence?

 

The defendant confirms he is the registered keeper of the vehicle

 

2. ‘Invalid Ticket’ does not constitute as a description of an alleged contravention such as expired, out of date or forged as such a different cause of action should be detailed on the particulars.

 

3. The damages of £50 for breach of contract are unclear as the Letter Before Action from Gladstones states the amount outstanding is £150 adding an additional £50 to the relevant charge £100 charge. This is not a breach of contract but the claimants solicitors charge, which was struck out by District Judge Sparrow sitting at County Court Southampton 19.08.2015 in ParkingEye v Mrs S B9FC508F.

 

4. The defendant denies the claim for costs on a contractual (indemnity) basis. The defendant has attached photos of the ‘contract’ displayed at the location, (figure 1) the ‘contract’ does not contain express an indemnity clause allowing for such costs to be claimed as such the defendant considers such a claim to be vexatious.

 

4. The particulars of claim are incorrect under CPR 16.4 (2) (a) (iv) as should the claimant claim for interest the particulars must include;

 

‘the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation”

 

5. The claimant has not show cause for action and locus standi by way of failure to respond to a CPR 31.14 request dated 15th September 2016 (figure 2) for sight of the contract between the landowner and themselves that assigns the authority to enter into contracts with the public and to make claims in their own name.

 

6. The Claimant has failed to comply with the conditions for recovery the charge under Schedule 4 the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 4 (8) (2) (g) in order to create keeper liability the notice must;

 

“inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;”

 

The notice does not provide any information regarding discount for prompt repayment (figure 3) as such the notice is not compliant with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the keeper cannot be pursued for any unpaid ‘charges’.

 

It should also be brought to the attention of the courts that SIP Parking is a registered operator of the IPC (International Parking Committee) an accredited trade associating in the private parking sector. The IPC outlines a strict code of practice for all operators Part C 3.1 (m) also states that The Notice to the Keeper must;

 

“Inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for resolution of disputes or complaints available to the keeper including; Any procedures offered by the creditor for dealing informally with representations by the keeper about the notice or any matter contained in it; and The arrangements under which disputes or complaints may be referred by the keeper to The IPC” (figure 3)

 

The claimant has not complied with the requirements outlined by the IPC’s code of practice as such the keeper of the vehicle cannot be held accountable.

 

The defendant believes it is important to highlight a clear conflict of interest as the Independent Parking Committee who provide the Independent Appeals Service is also owned and operated by the directors of Gladstones Solicitors.

 

 

Will Hurley and John Davies, in effect the Claimaint’s solicitors have the potential to exert influence via their formulation of the appeals process and appointment of adjudicators, (whose identities are deliberately withheld) over the extent to which appeals are allowed. This in turn is likely to have the consequence of generating more litigation for them to undertake on the IPC’s members behalves.

 

There is also the potential for the Claimant’s solicitors to compromise the supposed independence of the IAS to suit the broader interests of parking management companies who are both its clients and the members of the trade association it operates.

 

10. The defendant disputes the behaviour of claimants solicitors conduct and that is has acted improperly in accordance to the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 particularly the following points;

 

2. act with integrity

3. not allow your independence to be compromised;

4. act in the interests of each client;

5. provide a proper standard of service to your clients;

6. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services;

 

9. The defendant requests the courts to use their discretionary case management abilities and strike out this claim under CPR 3.4 (2) on the basis that the claimant has no standing to bring a claim and that the claimant is abusing the court process and they are a vexatious litigant.

 

10. The defendant requests for full recovery of costs under CPR 27.14 (2) (g)

 

LiP Research Costs £19 @ 5 hours = £95

Postage Costs £15.46

Total = £110.46

 

This is a statement of truth to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

 

IMG_2323.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

their signage fails to show that they belong to an ATAnad that may fall foul of Para 12 of the POFA regarding signage content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news!

 

I received notification last week that the claim was struck out, Gladdys didn't event send any documents to court, very strange considering they sent me an email with their new particulars!

 

Thank you so much for all your help and support, I spent a considerable amount of time putting together the final defence however I'm not too bothered, I'm just glad its over!

 

I will be donating to the board as you guys have helped tremendously :) x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well done

 

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can go after SIP for a breach of the DPA if you feel like it.

 

 

Most people wont but if everyone did these companies would have to either get things right all of a sudden or go out of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...