EPS/gladstones ANPR PCN Claimform - Lidl - Lower St, Newcastle-under-Lyme, ST5 2RS

[daftinvoice123]

After reading a lot of threads i want to defend this. I've already done the following.

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claim form.

.

register as an individual

note the long gateway number given

then log in

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 3114 request running to the solicitors

 

type your name ONLY

 

no need to sign anything. (will be posted to them on monday)

 

Other details:

 

Name of the Claimant ? - Euro parking services limited

claimants Solicitors: Gladstone Solicitors Limited

 

Date of issue – 9th Nov 2018

 

What is the claim for – (to note there is no registration on the letter either)

 

The driver of the vehicle registration (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 26/08/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Lidl & travelodge The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £14.25 pursuant to S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day.

 

 

What is the value of the claim? - £174.25 amount claimed, court fee £25.00, legal rep costs £50.00 Total amount £249.25

 

Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? Euro parking services

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? - Not sure what this is?

 

Other things to note:

- There is no pay and display at the car park. There is signage which states customer have "x" amount of time to park as a customer. (Going to check the time on the signage and take photo's)

- I have receipt of the driver's purchase at the store - Dated 26/08/2017 with a time of 13:59

- The two photo's in the notice to keeper letter both showing the vehicle moving dated 26/08/2017 and time stamped 14:14

- I no longer own the vehicle

- I tried contacting lidl but they basically told me to take it up with euro parking services.

 

What's the best line of defence to take?

-Check with the council whether they even have the planning permission?

-Check the so called "contract" on the signage and use the receipt to counter the "breach"?

-Provide the evidence that car was not parked as per the photos?

 

Thanks in advance

[AndyOrch]

Hi and Welcome to CAG

 

Our resident parking experts will be along shortly...can be a slow response over the weekends.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[ericsbrother]

OK usual Gladstone vague diet roboclaim with no added detail and 50% less honesty than other leading brands.

We will need to know the offer of terms made by EPS at the site by way of the signage so if it is nearby pop back and get some pictures of the entrance to the car park from the public highway and then pictures of the signage so we can read them and comment.

 

As you have the NTK what was the date you received it? There should be an entry and exit photo with the time stamps for both.

Lastly, full address for store so we can have a look on go ogle aourselves and also so you can amke enquiries about the various planning consents for yourself regarding both parking limits and whther EPS have planning permission for their cameras and signs

[daftinvoice123]

Thanks guys, entrance and signs attached.

 

I also took a couple to show how small the signs were as well.

 

From what i can see there isn't any cameras.

When i went back yesterday on foot, they still just have a chap there with a phone to take the photo's.

 

I don't know the date as i can't find the NTK letter but i know they sent it about a couple of weeks after. You can see from my photo's of the letter both timestamps of the photo's are done by a person and timestamped 14:14.

 

The address for the store is Lower St, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Newcastle Under Lyme ST5 2RS

 

Had to make another reply to attach the others.

 

Thanks guys, re-uploaded as one PDF.

docs1.pdf

Edited November 27, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[ericsbrother]

you have missed out the entire content of the NTK other then the invoice number, which is the exact part that should be redacted.

 

Entry and exit times needed, they will be on the NTK as it is ANPR

 

now signage at entrance says T&C's apply.

Well this is an invitation to treat and that menas you dotn have to be bound by the terms offered by individual signs if you dont want to be.

So for example, if it say only 90 mins parking in a particular zone but there are no restrictions of time when parking outside that area then you can park as long as you want. Their problem is that their images dont show either an overstay captued by ANPR nor a breach of terms, merely a moving vehicle so no evidence you were even parked there at all.

 

This is somehting you will need to press home in your defence, a bloke taking pictures of cars passing by doesnt show a breach of a parking contract.

Your receipt will show that you were there only about 15 minutes if you want to admit the car was parked so again no overstay.

Car clearly within white lines when reversing from parked position so no reason to send you a demand.

 

What was the breach they claim on the demand that will have to be on the NTK but of course we cant see that at present

Edited November 13, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing spelling

[daftinvoice123]

Apologies, i can only find those images that i took a while back of the form and not the form itself. I will however turn the house upside down later to try and find it. I think i remember the breach stating "leaving the site" while parked on the NTK.

[ericsbrother]

leaving the site? Read up on VCS v Ibbotson and you will see that is a non starter for them.

 

Secondly and more importantly there isnt such a condition in the contract offered so you CANT breach it.

Simple defence will be no cause for action as the claim is based on a non existent contractual condition so there can never be a breach to create a debt.

 

so when you go to MOL to post your defence you put these 2 points with the lack of a contractual clause first and then say "in any case2.... and then mention Ibbotson

 

Make sure that is what they are claiming on the NTK though, the court claim as you can see doenst actually state what it is about.

 

you can add to the 2 lines with a slagging off of Gladdys and their crap roboclaims regarding the differnce between a contractual consideration and money owed for a breach of contract but I would save that for your witness statement as it is covered by the no contractual clause.

Edited November 15, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[daftinvoice123]

Thanks for the replies. I've looked everywhere and i'm unable to find the NTK. The signage states "90 minutes stay whilst your remain on the premises", is this not enough for them to say it exists in terms of a contract?

 

As a whole so far the points that can be used in the defense look to be;

-The claim is based on a non existent contractual condition so there is no breach to create a debt. (Courtesy of gladstones and their roboclaims) + (in any case - VCS v Ibbotson)

-The entrance signage is an invitation to treat and that means i don't have to be bound by the terms offered by individual signs if i don't want to be.

-The images on the NTK show the vehicle moving (seconds apart) and not parked. (Taken by someone with a handheld camera/phone)

-Potentially EPS do not have planning permission for their cameras and signs on the car park

 

and/or

 

-A shopper from the vehicle has a receipt to prove a purchase at the store at 13:59 and the car was pictured moving at 14:14. (No breach of the terms even if i were bound by them)

 

Would you recommend leaving the last point out due to conflicting/contradicting information and save that?

[brassnecked]

"90 minutes stay whilst your remain on the premises",

Unfair term, you might have a child/elderly Relative who needs a toilet, Lidl don't usually have customer toilets, (Lidl in Mold does) so you would have to leave their car park for that

[ericsbrother]

so there is no limit to the parking time when you leave the premises. a bit like the permit holders only signs, the driver is a trespasser if they arent a customer and that is nowt to do with the parking co.

 

Knowing what the NTK says is now actually very important as if it isnt the same as this suggested term they have no breach to pursue regardless of the wording of the sign

 

As for your additons you have chosen to clarify things forget them, they dont help. Also do not include the bit about Gladdys in your defence.

 

I would rephrase the point about their images and say that the evidence they have offered merely shows a vehicle in transit and the defendant puts it to STRICT PROOF that any breach took place with the supposed observation periods identified.

 

You can add a whole book to this later if they dont drop the matter.

 

Also let Lidl know via their social media that you are being suded for visiting their store for 10 minutes and that you will be going after them once you have defeated this ridiculous claim.

 

a 90 minute parking period is not an unfair term and doesnt breach the Equalities Act, dont get drawn into a slippery slope argument. If you were disabled and notified them (or Lidl) that you needed extra time that would be another matter but it doenst make a contract unfair, all contracts can be varied by agreement

Edited November 15, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[daftinvoice123]

I’ve managed to find the NTK.

 

the reason for issue is: parking for patrons whilst on the premises only.

 

Interestingly also it’s states period of parking as 12:44:43 to 14:13:48 which is definitely incorrect.

 

NTK attached

ntk pdf.pdf

Edited November 27, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[ericsbrother]

parking for patrons whilst on premises only isnt a breach, it is a statement or condition so the breach would have been parked on premises but not a patron. They offer no evidence of that and you cna show that you were a customer and the clause isnt one that is proper because if you look at ibbotson there is nothing in law to say you cnat aprk, offer your custom to whoever and then go and get some cash out of the hole in the wall or whatever, the idea that it is a breach of patrons parking to go somewhere else as well is a nonsense. They cnmat claim that they intended the sign to mean whatever they wanted it to but this is the reality of their claim

 

Already said is pictures dont show entrance/exit but 2 pictures of a moving vehicle and they are not time stamped so where do they get the timings from?

 

Now this is easy to argue at a hearing but will ne impossible to get your point across in a hearing on the papers so Gladdys will be asking you and the court to accept their submission that the matter should be dealt with in the latter manner. thye have to or they lose so dont accept any such offer.

Edited November 16, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[daftinvoice123]

Thanks ericsbrother, i am in the process of contacting lidl direct in different ways to get this matter dropped but i'm just getting the usual copy and paste responses with no human interaction.

 

Based on this information how would file your defence?

 

The images are time stamped but they both say 14:14 and tiny writing in the bottom left

Edited November 27, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[ericsbrother]

Very simple

No breach of contract so it is denied that the defendnat owes the claimant anything.

 

leave all of the detail for when you have to exchange witness statements, this will be a good while yet and Gladdys will have to shell out a few more quid on behalf of their client in the interim.

 

it is rumoured that Gladstones actually bankroll these claims on a sort of we pay upfront and claim the money afterwards basis, which is unethical and possibly unlawful as Champerty and Maintenance but as they are the world's greatest solicitors I'm sure they have no need to go to such lengths to earn a few quid and look good in front of the IPC members who havent lost a small fortune for following their advice.

Edited November 16, 2018 by dx100uk
spell/space

[daftinvoice123]

Gladdys have responded. (attached).

 

The only thing i've left out is the NTK which matches the one uploaded.

 

Interestingly, there is more photo's of which the car is somehow in another space than pictured the second time.

 

I'm assuming i'll just use the receipt and go with that there was no breach as previously advised?

 

Thank you

3rd time lucky.pdf

Edited November 27, 2018 by dx100uk
merge

[brassnecked]

Parent and "CHILED" Bay on sign, no such animal. Looks likr they confused the colour of your car .

[daftinvoice123]

"By atlest" as well.. i'm surprised i never noticed that before

[ericsbrother]

one piccy is a B&W version of the other.

I cant read the time stamp on the parked car images, can you see them on the original they sent?

 

The last picture of the front of the car says 13.44 so less than 1/2 hour parking as the leaving piccy shows.

Also they are obliged to include these images in the NTK and they didnt.

Edited November 27, 2018 by dx100uk
spacing

[daftinvoice123]

The one of the rear of the car (in a different space that i'm 99% sure has been taken on a different day) shows 12:47. The close up shows 13:54 which was clearly taken before the shoppers went into the store to which the receipt which has a timestamp of 13:59. And you're correct, these images were not included on the NTK.

[brassnecked]

Looking at the conflicting evidence they seem to have scuppered their chances, a concise defence pointing out the discrepancies will be good. With what they have sent I would imagine Gladdy's will be asking for the case to be decided "on the Papers" as they know they will lose at a proper hearing.

[daftinvoice123]

How would you suggest i complete my defence knowing all the facts from the information?

 

Simply just "No breach of contract so it is denied that the defendaant owes the claimant anything"? or should i add anything else to it at this stage?

[dx100uk]

std 2 or 3 line defence on numerous PPC Claimform threads here already

 

nothing more at this stage

 

post here first mind:madgrin:

[daftinvoice123]

With the issue date being the 9th of November. I logged in and completed the acknowledgement of service on the 10th and that was received on the 12/11. Am i right in think i should have submitted this already? Or is it 33 days from the 9th? (12th december)

[dx100uk]

i would assume you mean your defence..??

 

By 4pm day 33 from the date top right of claimform

Or if a w/end 4 pm Friday before

[daftinvoice123]

Yes, if it's day 33 them i'm all good. Thanks for re-assuring me.