Jump to content


porkloiner

SIP/Gladstones claimform - PCN Gateway Plaza, Barnsley **CASE DISMISSED**

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 845 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

Right, maybe not bother with the landowner then

 

So - just to clarify, submit my defence as is at the moment? I may leave it until I return from hol to submit so as not to invite any further correspondence whilst I'm away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not due till/by 4pm feb 17th

i'd leave it for now


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

Yeah, was thinking the same - just I won't have time to write anything new before then so I'll just submit what I've written above on or before that date. I owe you two a beer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

use the courts decisions on the parking prankseters blog and web site to reinforce the arguments.

 

Also I would add another bit saying that the sum advertised as being the amount claimable and the rest of the monies demanded in the PAC are unlawful additions as they are not a contractual matter nor covered by the Courts Act for allowable expenses.

 

Again look up other people's cases and quote them

 

The reality is that Gladdys do the work for free and then add additional costs that are not paid out to the claim to make a profit.

 

You can tell this from their accounts.

This is called Champerty and Maintenance

but damned difficult to prove as they dont have to publish detailed accounts in the annual return to Companies House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting ready to file my defence...

 

Can someone please explain this point to me in more detail?

 

"The amount claimed does not represent the original charge expressed to the driver, which was zero, so is purely made up of monies that are thus unenforceable penalty charges" which ericsbrother suggest I include

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the sign says that there is a contractual obligation to pay £100 for parking sadly then that is all they can charge.

 

They cannot add on any other amount afterwards for their so-called debt recovery costs or whatever, becuase they are relying on a contract with someone they have not met and so cannot agree to be bound to other made up charges, only the original contractual amount.

 

Generally this works in favour of the keeper as they ahev never agreed to anything but are bound, in certain circumstances to pay the contractual sum.

 

As they are not claiming POFA keeper liability they havent even shown they have the right to chase you for this, let alone extra monies for letter writing. They know it must most punters dont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update on this - hearing in August... time to get writing and compiling, I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that an indication of the pressure that all these fraudulent cases are putting on the courts system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well PE issue claims in huge numbers so it does clog the system.

That may lead to changes in the law and as PE are owned by Capita, the govts favourite outsourcing people we can bet that some of the new laws will favour the parking co's and will be designed to have the effect of reducing the numbers of people who defend themselves at court becuse they are right and the parking co's are wrong.

 

For example, PE want to make the keeper liable in all claims rather than have to rely on the POFA and reverse the burden of proof as far as the agreement under contract law goes.

 

Well, that will mean that the dodgier end of the parking world will be issuing claims at random and without proof of any relationship (might as well take down car reg as it drives down the street) and claim that a contract was offered by text to someone and under the new powers there is no way out of this.

 

I hope that it goes the opposite way and the claimant has to show a greater proof of claim at the outset.

This will mean that they will have to say whether they invoke the POFA or not and if not what evidence they have thet are chasing the right person.

This will kill nearly all of the IPC led claims.

Both scenarios are being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Papers need submitting next week. How is this looking?

 

----

 

1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number XXXX XXX involved in the penalty charge notice XXXXXXX issued by SIP Parking Limited on XX/XX/XXXXX. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

 

2. The claimant has not identified the driver and there is no keeper liability created under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The claimant has not created said liability for the following reasons:

 

i. Schedule 4 paragraph 7 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory set of information that must be included on the parking ticket. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Driver is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. The claimant has failed to:

 

Correctly state how the parking rules were broken. Reason given was ‘No Ticket Displayed’. The car park operates a ‘Pay By Phone’ payment method thus a screen ticket is not necessarily required. On the numerous occasions the vehicle was parked there previously, payment was made via this method (receipts enclosed).

 

What the parking charges are for, the infringement of the rules, and of the maximum additional costs they may seek to recover, and the date by which those parking charges should be paid. The Notice to Driver states that the charge will be £100 if paid within 28 days. There is no tariff mentioned for paying in excess of that time.

 

Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulates the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. Failure to comply with paragraph 6 means that the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. The claimant has not created said liability for the following reasons:

 

Failed to repeat the information in the Notice to Driver regarding paying the parking charge and the tariffs referring to when the charge is paid.

 

The Claimant has no standing to bring a case:

 

The claim form states that the land is ‘managed by SIP Parking Ltd’. They are therefore acting as agents of the landowner.

 

The small print on the signage provided by the claimant demonstrates that SIP Parking Ltd will not be liable for any damage to or property stolen from vehicles. This means, therefore, they are acting on behalf of the landowner, but the signage does not state who the landowner is.

 

The Claimant has not provided copies of the alleged contract between SIP Car Parks Limited “The Operator” and Gateway Plaza “The Landlord” in their particulars of claim. However, Fairlie v Fenton establishes the situation regarding agency.

 

If the agent is acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal, they can sue and be sued

If the agent is acting on behalf of a named principal, they cannot sue

If the agent is acting on behalf of a principal whose name is not disclosed, then they can only sue if they assume the risk; in other words, if they can be sued if they fail to uphold their part of the bargain.

 

This case is clearly (b)..’, and SIP Parking Ltd, therefore, have no standing to bring this case. Only the landowner has the right to do this.

 

The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist

 

The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.

 

The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the signage is ‘clearly displayed’ but this is not agreed. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present. Although the Claimant has not provided a signage map in many of their car parks signs are positioned in such a way as to create ‘entrapment zones’ where signage is not clearly visible. The Claimant is put strictly to proof that this is not the case on this site.

 

The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.

 

The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty

 

The claim includes a sum of £50, described as ‘Legal representative’s costs’. The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant, issuing up to 1,000 similar claims on a weekly basis, using the bulk processing service, generating up to £50,000 of income. Given a standard working week, the claimant’s solicitor can spend no more than a few minutes per claim, hardly justifying the £50. Since these are fully automated, no intervention is required by a solicitor, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to show how this cost has been incurred. The Claimant maintains case notes for each person who has accessed the case, and it is suggested this would be sufficient. The Claimant cannot rely on Nossen’s Letter Patent (1969) to justify the charge, as this is part of their everyday routine, and no ‘expert services’ are involved. The £50 is not valid because it is not incurred by the claimant, generating over £1.5 million a year in profit.

 

Additionally, as this is already included as part of the costs of the claimant, factored into the £100 parking charge, this is essentially double charging.

 

The £50 solicitor cost was disputed in the test case of ParkingEye v Beavis and Wardley. HHJ Moloney refused to award the £50. His award was; “JUDGMENT FOR CLAIMANT FOR £85 PLUS ISSUE COSTS”. These were presumably the £25 filing fee and £25 hearing fee.

 

----

 

It is all properly numbered on the actual document but for some reason, the formatting isn't working on the forum.

 

Do I also need to serve copies of all supporting documentation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

point 1

dont tell the court that any of the the points are fatal to the claim, that is for them to decide.

 

where you have mentioned other case law you must provide copies of that case law or at least a recent printout of the references.

 

Again, where you have quoted material regarding gladdys you must say where it is from

if you dont have it from the horses mouth so screen shot of Pranksters blog or wherever.

 

Also where you challenge the locus of the parking co

state that you sent a CPR 31.14 request for documents and they failed to produce them if applicable.

 

Whwere you challenge the sigange you had better have included photographs that tell your side,

no-one else will help you and if they say that there are 30,000 signs each 400 feet tall

they will be believed unless you acn show something to the contrary.

 

Illogical but that is the way of things so a map or plan of the site ( aerial view with notes) is advisable.

 

If you have posted the WS off, these things can be taken on the day because they are not new evidence just visible proof of what you say.

If the case was about a car no-one would expect you to post the car to court as 'exhibit A'

but if it was about a dent a picture of the dent would be advisable to say the least.

 

Hope that mkaes sense to you.

 

take everything you can,

including copy of the rights of audience legislation as they are likely to not send a solicitor

but a paralegal form a local firm and that person will not have the right to say anything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

 

Haven't posted yet. When it comes to numbering exhibits, what's the best or preferred format? Is there any protocol in relation to this?

 

Also - what is the date of service? The date I post it? I've done some research re this and I can't find a definitive answer. The hearing is 11th August

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

must be with the court 14 days before the hearing date and a copy to the claimants sols too.

 

 

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

Okay, I have made the suggested amendments and also added the following:

 

---

 

A CPR 31.14 request was made to the Claimant’s solicitors for the following on 26th January 2017:

 

the contract between SIP Parking Ltd and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name;

 

proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007;

 

copies of the notice to driver, notice to keeper and any other correspondence from SIP Parking Ltd and Gladstones Solicitors Ltd to the defendant that they intend to rely upon in court

 

No reply was ever received from the Claimant.

 

---

 

and

 

---

 

I have acted reasonably throughout the claim whereas the Claimant has not.

 

I decided not to engage with the appeals process offered by the Claimant for the following reason:

 

In Parking & Property Management Limited v C Limited C6GF02Z5 19/1/2017 Birmingham. DJ Musgrave, C Limited pointed out that there was a clear conflict of interest as the IAS (the appeals service provider) and Gladstones were run by the same body. A potential conflict of interest therefore exists between the Claimant’s Solicitors and their client. In effect the Claimant’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 (in my case, SIP Parking Ltd.) 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

 

I have however, responded to all Correspondence from the claimant re court action. In a letter to the Claimant’s Solicitors on the 6th March 2017 in a letter requesting an oral hearing, I also made a genuine payment proposal of £40 to settle the matter in my capacity as registered keeper of vehicle XXXX XXX. I received no reply.

 

The Claimant’s Solicitors have failed to reply to any correspondence and the the CPR 31.14 request.

 

---

 

Reckon I'm good to go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

numbering. well 1, 2 etc and refer to the numbered document in your WS to correspond.

I would drop the mention of making a proposal regarding the £40, it may will sink you.

If you made that offer after posting on here you must be mad.

service is 2 days after you post it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I offered it was to appear more reasonable and because that was the minimum that should have been offered on the NTK. Do you suggest I remove it from the WS either way? To be fair, the proposal was made whilst stating it was being made in my capacity as registered keeper only and was not an admission of liability and that they had still failed to create keeper liability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, remove as it does you no favours and may do harm.

 

If you are asked about it then answer honestly and say yes,

you made the offer as your time is worth more than that etc.

 

 

Also prepare a list of your costs for defending the claim and add 5 hours

@ £19 per hour research and preparation costs as the claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14.2(g).

 

 

Have this as a document to hand over when you defeat the claim or add it to your bundle so the court and gladdys get it beforehand.

 

Make sure you include a copy of the Wakefield judgement that has on this forum last week,

it has been summaried on the parking pranksters blog so print off and use as proof the claim has nio merits and they are serial offenders.

that will reinforce your costs claim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, will do. They probably never even read the letter anyway

 

Just read the Wakefield judgment. Not sure how it applies to my case - unless you mean the POFA aspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, it is all about the unreasonableness of Gladstones and gives you ammunition to make the judge look at their crap paperwork and decide that you deserve £190 for doing yours nicely that you otherwise wouldnt be getting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Parking Enforcement agreement is between SIP car parks and SIP parking.

 

Have you checked with Land Registry who is the actual landlord of gateway Plaza.

 

I don't know Barnsley at all but I notice that the Postcode for Gateway Plaza is S70 2SB while the parking agreement for Barnsley postcode is S70 2NQ.

 

The contract is 4 years old-what proof that it is still in force.

 

Does land registry record a change of ownership in the land over that time necessitating a new agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you make hay with their statement and point out that it is not a genuine claim but a carbon copy of those that have failed to show a cause for action in the following cases

( you then refer to the cases that were booted out that appeared on the pranksters blog recently)

 

judges love precedent, it saves them having to look things up and avoids making a boo boo.

 

It was Hounslow where the judge got annoyed with gladdys crap work.

The defendant was a poster on here.

 

As already said an agreement between SIP and itself is worthless and they know it

. they will try and argue that the other co has the real contract with landowner but make no reference to whether they are allowed to transfer their rights and liabilities.

 

The reason they have done this deal is because SIP car parks has charges against the co and they are channelling the cash into the separate company.

Undoubtedly unlawful but that is not a concern of a civil court.

 

The agreement between Landowner and SIP car parks will be very telling

If it doesn't appear you make a big fuss about it and what is called "locus standi"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claim dismissed!

 

The Judge didn't agree with me that keeper liability hadn't been created

- he didn't seem to have much of a grasp of POFA at all and was interpreting it differently to what I was

 

I thought I was on to a loser, however, Gladdy's WS made reference to the signs in the car park and the site signage plan

- the sign in their bundle wasn't the same as in the car park and they didn't even enclose a signage plan.

 

Furthermore, they didn't include the windscreen ticket (relevant to my POFA argument) in their bundle and when I brought all this up, the Judge dismissed the claim.

 

Thanks to those that have contributed on this thread and assisted me with defending the matter - it's much appreciated.

 

Gladdy's rep was utterly useless and if he's an example of what they send to these hearings,

I would encourage anyone to challenge the PPCs or as I prefer to call them, Parking Cowboys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post up your case number so I can refer to it in the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D7GF0861

 

Would that be the number you need?

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...