Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The card number at the top right of the Advanced Application Form and Agreement does not reflect the same card number the number is 546780 and ends 5931 (however that card was taken out in 2005) the card number on the POC - there isn't one it is just the reference number that they use or they call the 'original account number'.   As for the statement (excel spreadsheet type) that has the same reference number but not credit card number.  However this is different to the spreadsheet paperwork they have sent previously to me. Which looks like it comes from Lloyds and shows the debt being written off by them. I've attached that here.   I wrote to Lowell asking for the deed of assignment and they haven't furnished us with it either. They did state that they don't have it as it is too old or something in the offer letter.      new doc 2021-02-25 08.15.42.pdf
    • Hello All   Update   As per post #83, I had mentioned that for some unusual  reason, there had been two deadlines from the court for responding, namely the 18th of January 2021 and 1st of Feb 2021.   With everyones great help I filed in the response by the18th of Jan 2021. I think I was bit concerned that the claimant, Mike Ashley may use the second deadline as a chance to add a supplementary statement in response to my defence.    Well, Mike Ashely has in fact does exactly this. He has responded and filed a supplementary witness statement and has responded to all the defence points. He has addressed most the issues I had raised in my defence.     His Supplementary WS is dated 30 January 2021 and his solicitors emailed it to me on the 17th of February 2021.   Not sure what to do, but he seems to have amended everything which i could have used as a loophole leaving me with the thought of , should we have waited till the 2nd deadline ie 1ist Feb2021 and submitted the defence rather than the 18th January 2021. this would have deprived him of the chance to response with a supplementary WS. Thats what really had a worried me and I raised it a few times on this platform.     Not sure now because he has kind of amended a few things, removed the incorrect exhibit ( where the signages had belonged to a different site, and called it a clerical error).   Will post his redacted supplementary WS later as at work now.   Thanks all
    • An eye-opening new report from the payment processor Worldpay found so-called 'mobile wallet' payments were used for just under a third of all online transactions in 2020. View the full article
    • Adding to all the other difficulties (address for service, proving an agreement, obtaining enforcement even if you succeeded) that have been raised: Has the obligation to repay yet arisen?   You say the agreement was repayment once the divorce settlement occurred, but then point out settlement has yet to occur!.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

HXCPM/Gladstones claimform ANPR PCN - Overstay Lawson Rd Brighouse HD6 1NY **WON+COSTS**


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

Thanks in advance for this site and all the posts and advice

You are all the reason we have decided to put up a fight.

 

Just for a context....

 

I have spent the last week reading everything I can possibly fit in to my brain on this subject and I just need some clarification on some points.

 

My family and I were away for 6 weeks (28 Nov 2017- 10 Jan 2018) in New Zealand

during that time my husband received a PCN (£60 early repayment) dated 29th Nov 4 days after the alleged incident (25th Nov) from HX Car Park Management Ltd.

The PCN was for overstaying a pre paid time that was paid for.

 

Needless to say we didn't see this or the next 'Outstanding Parking Notice' (£100) dated 28 Dec until we returned home on on 10th Jan.

 

He got another letter dated 12th Jan which was a 'Final Demand Notice' (£125).

 

At this point he freaked out completely, as you do, checked his diary and saw that he was not even the driver since he was working 40 miles away that day.

 

I immediately wrote a letter (since he didn't have the time) (dated 19th Jan) telling them that he was not the driver and could provide proof of this if required, gave them a copy of flight ticket to show we were away and so couldn't respond to their letters and asked them to stop sending letters of a threatening nature and posted it recorded delivery.

 

Obviously I did not look at this amazing forum (or indeed any of the other ones we have since come across) first (more fool me).

We heard nothing for 2 months and then last week received an LBC from Gladstone Solicitors giving 30 days to cough up the now £160!

 

I have since looked at so many forums and legislation, including the Pre Action Protocol, POFA and have whittled down what I think we need to do now which is draft a letter to Gladstones asking for:

 

1. an explanation of the cause of action

 

2. whether they are pursuing the driver or keeper

 

3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

 

4. what the full details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)

 

5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim

 

6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver

 

7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed

 

8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

 

9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

Is this the right thing to do?

And may I post a copy of my drafted letter on here for you guys to check it's ok if you wouldn't mind that is?

 

10. All photographic evidence showing where the car was parked when the (alleged) breach was made.

 

11. Images of the time displayed on the P&D machine at the material time.

 

12. Evidence that the time on the machine was correctly synchronised with GMT.

 

13. Details of the amount that was paid and the length of overstay (as these details were not in the NTK) so NTK does not meet the POFA 2012 on this basis.

 

They haven't stated that they are relying on the POFA in any of their letters and although they seem to have included most of the details required of them in the NTK as per the POFA they haven't been completely concise on all counts and the photos they provided do not have the car parked but is actually in motion on what looks like a main road.

 

My brain is swimming with everything I have read and I can't decide what the next best course of action should be.

 

 

Your help and comments would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK, this is up to you. Whatever you do won't make any difference to Gladrags as they don't play by the normal rules like everyone else.

 

You can either ignore them and wait to see if they actually issue a claim. Or you can write to them and then wait to see if they actually issue a claim :lol: Gladrags won't really take any notice of what you write, if they're going to issue a claim (which they like to do) they'll issue it anyway. It's only really then that we can get our teeth in to whatever they've 'claimed'.

 

As the tickets are in your husbands name, I'm assuming that he is the keeper of the vehicle? Whoever was driving is immaterial, do not give Gladrags that information (or post it here).

 

 

The £160 that they're claiming is bunkum, that will go up if they actually make a claim, but before they can get their pay day, they have to win at court. With Gladrags 'form' of rubbish claims, it's very unlikely that they're going to be able to win a properly defended claim. So don't worry about that! :wink:

 

Have a look at this thread

 

If you have any of the letters you've received, it would be useful if you can scan them, remove any personal info (name & address, vehicle registration) and any PCN codes, QR or Bar codes, convert them to PDF format and upload them to the thread. That way we can start picking holes in things that will help in your defence should they decide that they'd like to lose their money in court.

 

 

But let's see where we stand and what you've received, and then we can suggest some wording for a 'jog on' letter to Gladrags & HX.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for this, We really do want to fight this as it’s completely unreasonable.

 

I will get on with filling out the ‘form’ above and posting pics of all the letters so far.

 

I think I will send them a reply to the LBCCC, it’s worth a shot...maybe they’ll not bother filing a claim...unlikely I know from what I’ve heard but at least we gave it a shot!

 

Thanks so much for your quick response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

post up your letter text here first for checking.

 

when doing your scanning

read upload

and post them to ONE multipage PDF only please

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, if HX followed the protocols of the POFA then they CAN claim from the keeper

but chances are they havent got everything right so we need to see the NTK they sent on the 29th Nov and also the signage at the car park if it is possible to get there.

 

As you have a limited time to fire off a response before they issue a claim

( HX are fairly new to this game so have been issuing a good number that havent gone through the courts process yet so they arent losing money to make them more cautious).

 

As for the amount going up,

again this is covered by the POFA any claims against the keeper are set in stone by the NTK so they cant add their unicorn food tax.

They know this but rely on ignorance and bluff, many people thus pay up thinking that some other amount will be added ad infinitum.

 

So although your list is pretty good show us the NTK and see if they are sunk by their own words first and then you can save all of the rest for if and when they still decide to issue a claim as you can then add their unreasonable behaviour to your response to the court claim.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

read upload should help

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so here’s the pdf of all the letters he’s had so far. God I hope the upload worked!

 

Scrawled all over the photos to obscure them as wasn't sure what to do? Sorry!

 

They don't show the car is parked, it's actually in motion, we have no idea where the pics were taken.

Scannable Document on 18 Mar 2018 at 16-32-24.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's remains 'nice' to see that HX, Gladrags and almost all these other bandits still don't quite understand the POFA and how it does not allow them to add all these extra charges.

 

Whilst it could be argued, tenuously (when it's made clear on the signage (with a specific amount)) that any additional fees for "debt collection" *might* be claimable. It's most certainly not, ever, claimable against the keeper if the keeper was not the driver.

 

So, while HX might be able to claim (even without a case) that the keeper owes the principle amount, in this case £100, the keeper most certainly does not owe £125 or £160.

 

 

That will be added to your defence witness statement if it goes as far as a court claim.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

their NTK is not POFA compliant so they are disbarred from claiming money from anyone.

so, you need to respond to the PAP letter before claim

 

I suggest something like the following:

Any debt to your client is denied as they have failed to show locus standi and failed to follow the protocols of para 6 and 9 ofthe POFA 2012 to create any liability by anyone in this matter. Also, as the demands made by your clients breach para 4(5) of the POFA and this means the contract is an unfair contract and is void under s62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

 

Now additional fees can be added to the bill they send the DRIVER but never if they rely on the POFA the driver has to admit they owe money and then not pay it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are being rather evangelical at the moment because they believe every word that Will and John peddle them ( the IPC is owned by these 2 people).

 

Once they have lost a few court claims due to the sloppy preparation work and poor advice they receive from their solicitors (gladstones, owned by Will and John-see IPC for reference) they will be a little more cautious on how they try things on.

 

at the monemt all you can do is fire off the letter as a response t their LBA and see what they do.

 

I would think they will take it to court but you have more ammunition for your defence we havent mentioned yet

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I saw that they were owned by the same people quite early on in my investigations.

Not entirely sure how the IPC are ‘independant ‘!

 

Finalising letter, will hopefully have it done by tonight!

Link to post
Share on other sites

just pointing out that it is 2 peoples self interest to push these court claims as everyone else loses and they still win as they dont do this for free. It looks like they do a sort of no win no fee contingency basis that stays just the right side of Champerty and Maintenance as far as we can tell. Obviously the parking co's know what they have signed up to but I dont necessarily trust them to know the law on this as they cant get a simple sign right

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the letter to Gladrags, but CC it to HX as well. It might give them pause for thought, and you can almost bet your life that Gladrags won't refer to their client (HX) for instructions as they should do, so without CCing them, HX won't know anything about the fact that they're about to lose money.

 

I firmly believe that where the LBC has not come from the principle (the PPC) then a copy of the reply should always be sent to the PPC so that they're fully aware of what's being done in their name and that you're up for the fight.

 

In some cases, once they know that they're not about to get a default judgement, they'll swallow it and cut their losses.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always useful :thumb:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, please do. always refer to yourslef in the third person so if they have written to you as a result of a NTK you say "the keeper" and not "I"

 

Reminds me of writing up chemistry experiments where you put something like "an exothermic reaction was thus observed" rather than "I burnt the lab down"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha ha! I hated chemistry!

 

Here's the letter sent....had to put 'I' in one or two para's :-0:

 

Gladstones Solicitors

The Terrace

High Leigh Park Golf Club

Warrington

Cheshire

WA16 6AA

 

19th March 2018

 

Your Ref:

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Thank you for your Letter Before Claim of 6th March 2018.

 

The alleged debt is disputed and will be vigorously defended. The Driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue the Registered Keeper.

 

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon nor does it contain any mention of indeed what evidence your client intends to rely on.

 

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.

 

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.

 

Please provide a Letter Before Claim which complies with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols by sending me the following information/documents:

 

1. an explanation of the cause of action

2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper

3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)

5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim

6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver

7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed

8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

10. All photographic evidence showing where the car was parked when the (alleged) breach was made.

11. Images of the time displayed on the P&D machine at the material time.

12. Evidence that the time on the machine was correctly synchronised with GMT.

13. Details of the amount that was paid and the length of overstay (as these details were not in the Notice To Keeper) and so does not meet the POFA 2012 on this basis.

 

I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6© of the Practice Direction. This information is also needed in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

 

If your client does not provide this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20); Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and © and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information.

 

The Notice to Keeper which has been served is not compliant with POFA 2012, since there can be no assumption made that the keeper was the driver thus cannot rely on POFA Schedule 4. The registered keeper cannot be held liable under any applicable law, nor can any assumptions be drawn (Henry Greenslade, Barrister and Erstwhile Lead Adjudicator of POPLA confirmed the position in law in the annual POPLA Report). Any debt to your client is denied as they have failed to show locus standi and failed to follow the protocols of paragraph 6 and 9 of the POFA to create any liability by anyone in this matter. Also, as the demands made by your clients breach paragraph 4(5) of the POFA this means the contract is an unfair contract and is void under s62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

The Practice Direction also requests the claimant should set out a suitable form of ADR, your letter has failed to do this also.

 

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided the above information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

 

Please note, a refusal to comply with the Practice Direction will result in an immediate referral to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for breach of the Principles contained in the SRA Handbook.

 

I trust this will not be necessary and look forward to receiving a fully compliant letter.

 

 

Yours faithfully.

 

 

Used the resources on mse forum and tweaked it to suit. Hope it can maybe help someone else struggling with the same!

 

Will keep you posted on what comes back...look out for the screamng banshee if/when a claim comes through!!!

Edited by Chimichanga
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one hell of an "up yours". I hope you wrote that in crayon! :razz:

 

However, I fear that it'll be completely lost on Gladrags, as they don't seem to conform to the same rules as everyone else and certainly won't understand any of the big words.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

at least you will be able to show it to a judge when you claim your costs for their unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14.2(g) The muppets who run these parking companies shoud learn to think for themselves or pay the consequences. I hope that they do get clobbered, I have no sympathy for laziness

Edited by DragonFly1967
Added spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a thought.

 

There’s no way that they can issue a claim and us not know about it is there?

 

There would definitely be something that comes through the post?

 

Having a slight panic that something might be missed

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...