Gemini/gladstones claimform - Windscreen PCN Queens hosp Romford - P+D ticket !***Claim Dismissed***

[DragonFly1967]

Read it again, they won't state that the driver was the registered keeper, they'll use the phrase, "the driver and/or the registered keeper", which keeps it just this side of the truth.

 

All of the parking companies try to word it in such a way so that the people they're writing to panic & pay up. Once you realise how these companies work (all of them), you'll see that most of what they say is only just on the right side of fact and they'll try to dress it up as much as possible to get you to part with your hard earned.

[DragonFly1967]

They probably could, but I'll guarantee they won't. Most judges (it seems) are as fed up of the parking companies as the rest of us.

 

Besides, if you were asked "Who was driving the car on that day"? A reply of, "I don't remember" would leave them with nowhere to go.

[DragonFly1967]

They're criminal cases that the likes of BWL & Gladstones are very fond of using.

 

They're of absolutely no relevance in a civil case of course, but they're still hoping that they'll be able to find a Judge that doesn't know that.

 

So far, they've failed (somewhat spectacularly in some cases) but they just keep on trying

 

Have a look here to see why they aren't relevant.

[DragonFly1967]

Take a screenshot of that page. You've just won your case

[DragonFly1967]

OK, I've just skim read this (very familiar) Robostatement. And a couple of points that I've picked up on to help you pick it apart.

 

Under "The Defendants Liability" at..

 

Para 6. The Register Keeper (the Defendant) failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings which is required under paragraph 5(2) of the Act.

 

Now, unless they have a completely different version of the POFA 2012 to everyone else. Paragraph 5(2) says...

 

Sub-paragraph (1)(b) ceases to apply if (at any time after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given) the creditor begins proceedings to recover the unpaid parking charges from the keeper.

 

No where in there does it say that the Recorded Keeper is required to name the driver.

 

 

And under the same part of their WS. Para 7. Elliot v Loake. Really??? I'd know that this was Gladrags shoddy work even if it wasn't in the title of the thread.

 

 

"The Charge"

 

In ParkingLie v Beavis the Supreme Court certainly DID NOT say that any £85 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. What they said was that IN THAT CASE and/or IN THAT CAR PARK and with THE SIGNS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE TIME that Barry Beavis parked there, that the charge was legitimate.

 

That only really stands for that very particular set of circumstances. ParkingLie pay the landowner a rent to operate in that car park. So in that case, they had the rights to charge that amount.

 

This really doesn't mean that any PCN from any cowboy outfit is just as legitimate.

 

 

Under the item headed "the contract" and under the sub heading "Unauthorised" there is a list of scenarios where a vehicle will be issued with a PCN.

 

No where there does it say "not parking in a blue badge bay while displaying a blue badge and not buying a P&D ticket" So, irrespective of what it may or may not say on their signage, you've not broken any of the terms that are in their contract that would mean that your vehicle was "unauthorised" and was issued a PCN.

 

 

Obviously and clearly the pictures of the signage and the wider pictures of where that signage is placed do not match the pictures of your vehicle and where it was parked.

[DragonFly1967]

Yep.

 

Has a hearing date been allocated yet?

[DragonFly1967]

Gladrags really have fired off too early on this then.

 

No need to rush with your WS, you have until 28th May (by my working out) to submit your WS to Gladrags & the Court.

 

It's important that you leave it to the last possible moment, that way Gladrags can't tailor anything (last minute) to counter what you're saying in your WS.

 

Sit on your hands for now and await ideas

[DragonFly1967]

Also, unless you hear otherwise before hand. Make sure that you check MCOL on 15th May and if they haven't paid the hearing fee, ask that the claim be struck out as per that order It probably won't be, but it's always worth asking

 

It also shows that you're taking an active interest in the case and that you're not going to be some muppet that Gladrags can just walk all over.

[DragonFly1967]

Get a screenshot of that if you haven't already. Make 3 copies (1 for Gladrags, 1 for Court and one for your evidence bundle). Refer to it in your WS.

 

That web page and Gemini's own contract should sink their claim without a trace, but let them waste their money on paying the hearing fee first

[DragonFly1967]

Can we see a copy of their "contract" please

[DragonFly1967]

Ahh yes, I remember it now I've seen it again. If I remember correctly, I pointed out that you did not breach any of the conditions which their own contract says will result in a ticket.

 

That opinion hasn't changed, and I don't think you have anything to worry about at court. Just don't forget to claim all of your expenses, LiP costs etc. Might as well teach them a financial lesson as well

[DragonFly1967]

Thank you, The problem I have now is its my partners name on the summons but shes really afraid to go to court and to behonest finding someone to care for the poorly babies isnt going to be easy either. Can I be allowed to speak for her ? from memory I dont think I am

 

Yes, you are allowed to do the talking. But take a copy of the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order with you. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/pdfs/uksi_19991225_en.pdf Just in case the Judge questions it.

 

It might also be worth taking a copy of this section of the legal services act. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/29/schedule/3/crossheading/rights-of-audience That way, if Gladrags send anyone other than a solicitor (and they have a habit of sending the tea boy) you can question their right to be heard by the court. And if they can't speak, you can rip in to their evidence completely

 

Also, I notice on their WS they go onto a Defense - Do I counter this 'Defense' with the WS ? as is pointed out, the cases they rely upon are not relevant and their description of POFA is incorrect.

 

Yep, go for your life and rip it to shreds

 

It also looks like the badge is set to 1545 and ticket was issued at 1601 - therefore, would it not be fair to argue as the vehicle is showing a disabled badge - if the occupant was having to go get change as their machines do not take notes - this could take a prolonged period as the only place is a shop within the hospital atrium; by the time walk there at a reduced rate, Q up to get the change and walk back - not much point getting a ticket once a PCN was issued ?

 

PPC's are required by their Codes of Practice (both the BPA and IPC) to give a MINIMUM of 10 minutes grace (not the 10 minutes maximum that they like to claim). The disabled badge is a little bit of a red herring as it (realistically at least) has no relevance on private land. However, because the vehicle was displaying a blue badge, then I do not think that it would be seen as unreasonable to allow extra time to buy P&D tickets etc. Leave the getting change bit out of it, that's irrelevant and might even muddy the waters, especially as the NHS trust clearly state that parking is free for blue badge holders (outside of the barriers at least).

 

 

Don't forget the screen shot of the hospital website, as in post #58 when it states that blue badge holders can park for free. Print it and take it with you.

 

 

And then also have another look at my post #135

[DragonFly1967]

I think the hospitals own website, and the fact that they clearly state that parking is free for BB holders, is going to sink Gemini/Gladrags case without a trace.

 

When you speak, open with that point.

 

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Judge stopped the proceedings and dismissed the case at that point.

[DragonFly1967]

Hmmm. I stand corrected in what I said earlier in the thread then. I honestly thought that a Lay Representative (i.e. you) would automatically get a right of audience.

 

Everyday is a school day as they say. Apologies for the mistake.

 

 

Well done on the dismissal though

[DragonFly1967]

OK, I've been looking in to this, because it was bugging me

 

The Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999 is the empowering legislation that means that someone, in this case, you, does have a right of audience before the court providing that the defendant, in this case your other half, is present. Or if special permission is given by the court for her to be absent (although that's unlikely to be granted).

 

Perhaps the court were mixing up "Lay Rep" and "McKenzie Feind" () as a McKenzie would definitely need the permission of the Judge before being allowed to open their mouth to address the court.

[DragonFly1967]

So I was correct then, and the court seems to have mixed things up?

[DragonFly1967]

I'm not seeing where it needs to be.

 

The legislation and CPR say "any person" and not 'any person as long as we know who'

 

 

What if you decided to use a Lay Rep long after the DQ was submitted? On the morning of the hearing for instance.

[DragonFly1967]

Ahh, they do seem to have mixed things up between Lay Rep and McKenzie then, but no matter in the end, I knew that website would sink them.

[DragonFly1967]

They wouldn't get away with it in a criminal court, but the county court system is a lot more relaxed.

 

Mind you, it works both ways... How late were you with your defence WS?