PPM/Gladstones Claimform - Windscreen PCN old Closed Iceland Store farnburn av, slough sl1 4xt . **DISMISSED**

[dx100uk]

already in post 21

just those 2 lines

[parkinghelp1]

also please note should i include i was never parked on "farnabarn avenue" as the road is mispelt

[dx100uk]

no you JUST use the 2 lines NOTHING ELSE!!

 

 

their vague POC deserves a vague defence.

 

 

dx

[parkinghelp1]

Hi all, i just received an email from gladstones solicitors :

 

 

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

 

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

 

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

 

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.

 

 

Kind Regards

 

please advise

[dx100uk]

std willy waving if you go read like threads.

 

 

safe to totally ignore until/unless you receive an N180 from THE COURT.

you object to the no hearing pipework hearing

as they want to do things without it being questioned.

 

 

which means they don't want their paperwork inspected as it full of holes

[ericsbrother]

why did you give them your emial address?

The advice on these forums is POST ONLY.

Now thay can harass you for free so block their emails.

 

Do not respond, they want to screw you by telling lies as they cannot win by telling the truth

so no to having the matter decided on the papers and let them go through the courts to ask.

 

 

They say the costs are disproportionate because they keep losing defended claims and their clients havent learnt that lesson yet.

If they wont they would be delighted to attend and claim their expenses.

Think about it and it wil soon make sense

[parkinghelp1]

hi, i will not respond.

 

true does make sense they would want to claim the9r full expense by attending!

 

i gave my email address when i replied to county court letter i received MCOL etc,

i thought that was just for them not for gladstones etc :/

[parkinghelp1]

hi all, didn't reply to their email, i have now received a notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track?!!

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

Has it been allocated to your local court?

 

HB

[parkinghelp1]

Hello there.

 

Has it been allocated to your local court?

 

HB

 

hi, top right it says "in the county court business centre"

the front page of the papers it says the following:

1. this is now a defended claim

2. it appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track

if you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you must complete box c1 on the small claims questionnaire (form n180) and explain why

3. you must by 22 august 2017 complete the small claims directions questionnaire (form n180) and file it with the court office

 

"address stated of the count court business centre"

and serve copies on all other parties

[dx100uk]

Std n180

No to mediation

One wit you

 

Rest is obv

 

You need to read other threads!!

[parkinghelp1]

thought id add aswell, i received an email back from the council in regards to planning permission for there signage...

 

" the council does not have a record of advertisement consent being issued for the site. However it is likely that the signage does not require permission because it is exempt from the advertisement regulations.

??

[dx100uk]

no it cant be exempt

council bods got it wrong

[ericsbrother]

what the councl means is that the signage would have "deemed consent".

This is a common response from ouncil minions who cant be bothered with all of this as they dont have the ability to enforce and even if they did there is no punishment other than ordering the offending signs to be removed or PP to be applied for.

 

The deemed consent refers to "informational" signs like "fire exit" and bus stops.

Theirs is an advertisement of a unilateral contract and the parking co's like to claim that this is informational when it is clearly a advert as described in Cahill v the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co back in Victorian times.

 

However, it would be a brave move to use the lack of PP as your only defence but pointing out the proper part of the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 and reminding the court that you cannot enter into a criminal compact so no contract can exist may help you when added to other facts regarding the lack of keeper liability etc that again some judges tend to ignore when presented on their own.

[parkinghelp1]

Hi, i have now had a letter through the post (notice of allocation to the small claims track(hearing))

"judge has considered the statement of case and directions questionaire filed and allocated the claim the the small claims track.

 

the defendant does not consent to a 'paper hearing'. The claimants request for the special direction has not been made, and where a witness has provided a sworn statement it is expected the deponent will attend for cross-examination.

 

unless the claimaint does by 4.00pm on the 16th november 2017 pay to the court the trial fee of £25.00, or file a properly completed application (i.e one which provides all the required information in the manner requested) for help with fees, then the claim will be struck out with effect from 16 november 2017 without further order and, unless the court orders otherwise, you will also be liable for the costs which the defendant has incurred.

 

the hearing will take place at............

 

each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (including experts report) on which he intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing.

 

the original docuemnts(including photograps) shall be brought to the hearing

 

( the trial fee is 2.1 in the current civil fees order)

 

If your claim has been struck out, it will no longer exist. the hearing will be vacated, unless a counter claim survives the claim being struck out.

 

what are the next steps and what does all this mean, i didnt think it would get this far...

[dx100uk]

you must serve parties your statement by 14 days prior to the hearing

hopefully the claimant files theirs first

DO NOT assume they wont pay the fee,

 

dx

[parkinghelp1]

what do i need to exactly include in this statement :/

and why do we hope they file theirs first? what does that mean

 

what is the likely next step from this

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

You don't seem to have read many threads about PPM/Gladstones and court claims, Try reading some more and also check out the Parking Successes thread so that you understand how it all works. You'll need the knowledge if you're going to court.

 

I think the statement dx refers to is a witness statement, you can get an idea of what to put in by reading other people's on here.

 

HB

[parkinghelp1]

Hi, i have recieved an email from gladstones

Dear xxxx

We act for the claimant.

 

Please find attached our client's Witness Statement.

 

We confirm the statement has been filed at the Court

 

Yours sincerely,

 

I, David Blake, of Ocean House, 12th Floor, The Ring, Bracknell, RG12 1AX WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I am the Employee of the Claimant Company (‘my Company’) and I am duly authorised to make

this statement on its behalf. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own

knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information

supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from

other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are following documents which my Company

wishes to rely upon;

i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as

described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’)

ii) The Sign (i.e. the Contract)

iii) The Site Plan

iv) Notices

v) Photographs of the incident

3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant

Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the

Schedule below are details of the parking charge;

 

( then states the pcn number and reason "unauthorised parking)

 

The Defence

No contract

4. My Company relies on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an

established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and

conditions set out on the sign, and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein.

5. The signs on the Land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which they did,

the charge was properly incurred.

No authority to enforce charges

6. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the

authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and

Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a

right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a

parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any

event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences

my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the

Landowner.

7. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186

1. “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have

the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not

have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious

flaw in this reasoning.

2. The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to

perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.

If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock

market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they

do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the

contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract

of sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to

contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to

perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and

Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held

to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would

not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in

precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the

land.

Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on

the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to

enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a

contract with the motorist to permit parking

CPR 31.14 Request

8. The Defendant refers to a CPR 31.14 request made. CPR 31.14 allows a party to request

documents mentioned in its statement of case. The Defendant requested a copy of the contract

between my Company and the Landowner, proof of planning permission and copies of all

correspondence sent, i.e. the notice to keeper. None of these documents are mentioned in the

statement of case and therefore CPR 31.14 does not apply. Further the Defendant would have

already been sent the notices and therefore he should revert back to his own records

accordingly.

The Defendant avers that they were not the driver

9. The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the Registered Keeper of a vehicle

may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption. To

date the Registered Keeper has been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver, yet

has failed to do so. The Court is therefore invited to conclude it more likely than not that the

Registered Keeper (i.e. the Defendant) was the driver.

10. In the alternative, if the Court is not able to infer that the Defendant was, in fact, the driver then

the Defendant is pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of

the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’) which states:

“The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.”

11. The relevant Notice was sent to the Defendant in accordance with the Act and the Registered

Keeper (the Defendant) failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these

proceedings (which is required under the Act (paragraph 5(2)).

12. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sched 4 (para 2) states that; the “keeper” means the

person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a

registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper.

The Current Debt

13. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of

the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to

the parking charge incurred.

14. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal

representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my

Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time

could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company

believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of

the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage.

The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses.

Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

 

they have then gone on to show a picture of the contract between them and PPM the company etc. a plan of the parking area they are in charge of that they said can be enforced, a picture of the signage and picture of the vehicle parked, and copies of the initial and remind notice. please note that one letter is misspelt of the road on everything they have sent and mentioned. example being ( lawdocks avenue > lawdacks avenue).. i dont know if this can be used... Please advice what i need to do, bit worried and a bit stuck on what to write :/

[silverfox1961]

These are my opinions of the statement above

My Company relies on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an

established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and

conditions set out on the sign

 

Not a valid argument due to the fact this site was no unauthorised parking. Parking eye allowed a set length of time to park before issuing a charge.

 

The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the Registered Keeper of a vehicle

may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption

 

They shoot themselves in the foot here by stating 'criminal case'. This case is civil, not criminal so means nothing.

 

In the alternative, if the Court is not able to infer that the Defendant was, in fact, the driver then

the Defendant is pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of

the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’) which states:

“The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.”

 

Without seeing the NTK, it is reasonably safe to assume that PPM do not use POFA 2012 so to rely on it in the alternative is wrong. They can't pick and choose which code of practice to use when it suits them.

 

Can you post up the contract and the other stuff you have received but make sure you remove any names, addresses and reference numbers.

 

n view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal

representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my

Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time

could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company

believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of

the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage.

The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses.

Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).

 

Gladstones are trying to justify the added costs by making the veiled statement that your behaviour was unreasonable so they should be allowed the extra costs. Wrong!

 

All they can claim for is the charge, the court fee and solicitor fee, fixed at £50 so even if you lost, the most you would have to pay is less than £200.

 

This is a numbers game to Gladstones. I cannot say that they actually do other work besides parking cases.

 

I also noted on an earlier post that they wish the case to be heard on paper alone. This won't happen and the chances are that a locum solicitor in your area will be assigned the case and make no witnesses available. This David Blake should be there to answer your questions. What's the betting he won't be there.

[ericsbrother]

why on earth did you give them your email address?

 

Block it or they will be sending you stuff the night before the hearing and saying you have got it.

 

ask yourself who is David Blake?

some parking co's use fictitious names to sign their WS's so get someone to phone PPM and ask to speak to him.

 

If you read up on this kind of stuff you will be able to quote a number of cases where Elliot v Loake was spat out as being ridiculous yet they still quote it,

along with the AJH films case they still try their luck

 

The POFA is later legislation and creates a liability IF certain conditions are met so they trump the earlier case law.

 

When they ask for costs persuant to the contract,

the keeper liability is limited to the value of the contractual sum ,

not additional costs so again they are playing with the truth in the hope that you dont notice.

 

 

show us the contract between PPM and the landowner, they are often so flawed as to be useless to the parking co.

[dx100uk]

so get scanning!!

one multipage PDF please only!

[parkinghelp1]

thank you all for your replies it is much appreciated.

 

i have attached everything,

also i have not yet sumbitted anything to the court or other parties as i do not know what to send or write..

 

. in the letter from the court it says

 

"each party shall deliver to every other party and to the court office copies of all documents (including experts report) on which he intends to reply on at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing. which i have 2 days to do. thank you

[dx100uk]

what date is the HEARING?

all you've told us was the fleecers have to pay the fee by

 

unless the claimaint does by 4.00pm on the 16th november 2017 pay to the court the trial fee of £25.00, or file a properly completed application (i.e one which provides all the required information in the manner requested) for help with fees, then the claim will be struck out with effect from 16 november 2017 without further order and, unless the court orders otherwise, you will also be liable for the costs which the defendant has incurred.

[parkinghelp1]

please note and advise all of the notices have a mispelling of the road on one letter, i dont know if this matters.

gladstonesggggg.pdf