GSX Windscreen PCN - Shoreham Port Authority Basin Rd Southwick W Sussex BN41 1WF

[Gustav]

I have received two letters that I have uploaded, neither of them seem to be notice to keeper, 1st one is a Notice to driver and 2nd is  Letter before claim.

 

The Letter before claim has taken 8 days to arrive from their date of issue so I need to work out how to proceed quickly.

 

Any help defending this much appreciated.

 

 

 

 

1 The date of infringement?  29/12/18 09:32

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] NO

 

if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it,

suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide

 

has there been a response?

please post it up as well, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] YES

what date is on it  01/03/19

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? YES ( not showing any bay marks or signage)

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?]  YES, in the second letter received it mentions it

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

 

5 Who is the parking company? GXS Services Ltd

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Shoreham Port Authority Basin Rd Southwick W Sussex BN41 1WF

 

 

uploads.pdf

[dx100uk]

ok you need to reply with one of the many EB snotty/insulting letters on many Gladstone threads here already.

[lookinforinfo]

I thought Parking Eye was rubbish at sending out their notices but GXS seems to have surpassed them

 

. I assume they did actually put a Notice to Driver on the windscreen way back in December?

 

  What they are then supposed to do is send you a Notice to Keeper to arrive at your address before 56 days have elapsed

 

. What they have done instead is sent another Notice to Driver [fail] then not only have sent the Notice to too late [another fail] but they have been stupid enough to actually date the Notice  outside the statutory time!

 

There is no way on God's earth that any Court would accept that which is why DX100 suggested sending Gladstones an Eric special. Gladstones have no comeback.

 

There are so many faults with just that even before we would check the signs in their car park or if they had planning permission

 

. Heaven knows what else we would find if we were to do that. In your case there is no point in going any further with our investigations.

 

They haven't just shot themselves in the foot they have blown both their legs off. Total  numpties.

 

Just find one one of Eric's letters and send it off.

[BazzaS]

I hope you haven’t identified the driver?

I also hope this wasn’t a hire car?

 

If so: at some stage, you reply as the keeper, pointing out that you are under no obligation to identify the driver, and they are way out of time for “Keeper Liability”.

You could do that now (with one of EB’s slightly sarcastic missives!), or wait until they have paid a court fee  (at which point you just make a factual reply .....)

[Gustav]

Can someone direct me towards ones of EB's letters or  how do i contact him? 

 

TY

[ericsbrother]

port authority land isnt "relevant land" as far as the POFA goes

so they have their own byelaws and the parking co cant invent new ones to suit themselves.

 

A suitable worded letter along the line of

 

"Dear Will and John,

thank you for your lba,

 

i couldn't stop laughing when I read it and may well use it as therapy should I get depressed at the thought of your clients wasting more money on what is an utterly pointless exercise.

 

Being the worlds cleverest solicitors you know damned well that the land that is the subject of this attempt at blackmail is not " relevant land" under the POFA and is covered by its own byelaws and so not subject to the made up rules of a mickey mouse bunch of ex-clampers.

 

Also the paperwork sent out by mickey mouse has failed to create any liability.

so even if the law covering the land wasn't sufficient reason to negate their demand their failure to follow protocol is.

 

i would have thought that the idiots at the IPC would have advised their members better than this as their members VCS always lose the same sort of claim at Liverpool  Airport and you are no stranger to helping them amass their losses there.

 

please advise your clients that any claim will be robustly defended and an unreasonable conduct costs order sought."

 

that should help you.

 

send a copy to gladdys and a copy to the parking co so they know when they chain is being pulled by Will and John if they are urged to chuck more money at this

[Gustav]

Thanks for coming back to me EB, 

 

Will this letter be enough? 

 

I assume when you say  MMouse has failed to create any liability you mean that they have sent the NTK after 56 days? 

 

Who are Will and John? 

 

sorry for questions 

 

Cheers
 

[ericsbrother]

send this and then spend the next fortnight reading  hundreds of other parking threads and you will learn for yourself most of what you need to know.

do a google search for Will and John IPC and then Will and John Gladstones and you will  have a lightbulb moment

[Gustav]

@Lookingforinfo

 

Cheers for that, i thought they had messed up with the 56 days, think i know whatim doing now 

 

@ericsbrotherI've had that light bulb moment, what a bunch of scoundrels.!!

 

So you think they will give up if I send them this letter, once they realise that the 56 days were well exceeded? 

 

Amazed the system let them take these cases to court

[honeybee13]

So you think they will give up if I send them this letter, once they realise that the 56 days were well exceeded? 

 

Not necessarily, these people don't necessarily follow logic. That's why ericbrother suggests you read many, many threads to understand the private parking world and Gladstones. As far as I can see, you haven't viewed many threads apart from your own, it will help you to expand your knowledge if you do especially if Gladstones are daft enough to take this to court.

 

HB

[brassnecked]

If they did try court the acidic letter is evidence that their claim is unreasonable, and will help prove you had tried to resolve the matter before they were daft enough to chuck money at a claim that could end up costing them more than they could ever gain.

[ericsbrother]

Will and John will try and persuade the parking co to give them money to take you to court and then they will do a crap job of trying to prosecute a claim because they want to do it on the cheap

 

They use autofill for the forms and miss out anything that is actually relevant.

when the parking co gets their day in court Gladstone's don't turn up but pay a local solicitor a few bob to present instead and when they lose bill the parking co for that as well as your costs.

that is why I say send a copy to the parking co,

 

they haven't much experience in Gladstone's methods so might well be persuaded by tales of daring do as they don't know any better.

 

get a letter like yours and they will probably decide it is better to save their money rather than risk losing twice or three times what they are asking for.

 

so next homework- look up the term "you've been gladstoned" and  see why  we say it would apply here

[Gustav]

So I've written a toned down version of your letter EB, am fearful to antagonise them. - But thats how they win is suppose.

 

Will this be ok ? 

 

 

Dear Will and John,

Thank you for your Letter Before Action. (LBA)

 

I couldn't stop laughing when I read it and may well use it as therapy should I get depressed at the thought of your clients wasting more money on what is an utterly pointless exercise.

 

I believe that the land that is the subject of this attempt at blackmail from the Claimant is not “relevant land" under the POFA and is covered by its own byelaws and so not subject to made up rules.

 

The paperwork sent out by the Claimant  has failed to create any liability.

so even if the law covering the land wasn't sufficient reason to negate their demand, their failure to follow protocol is.

It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Under paragraph 8&9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it states there should be a NTK (notice to keeper) sent to the registered owner. This notice was not sent to the Defendant from the Claimant within the required time, thus making any claim null and void.

 

I would have thought that IPC would have advised their members better than this as their members VCS always lose the same sort of claim at Liverpool Airport and you are no stranger to helping them amass their losses there.

 

Please advise your clients that any claim will be robustly defended and an unreasonable conduct costs order sought.

 

Sincerely,

[Gustav]

should i refer to them as Client or Claimant ? thinking client is right because it hasnt been filed yet ....

 

[dx100uk]

your client

[brassnecked]

There is no need to water down ericsbrother's letters, the recipients are well aware they are cruising for a bruising (The late Muhammad Ali)  if they persist in their futile actins so they are good to send as is.

[ericsbrother]

why on earth do you think we spend time drafting responses if you think that a toned down version would be better when a week ago you didnt know who Will and John were.

 

 

as for telling them what the law is, they are lawyers, despicable lawyers but still smart at legal things so dont tell them their business, they will use this to measure your lack of knowledge and rewrite the claim so it is something entirely different, even though it will be manifestly untrue.

 

you also dont want them to know what other cards you hold in your hand, the reason they can afford to behave the way they do is becasue they dont lose enough claims for their clients yet so hitting them harder later eats their client's money and they will then realise that the IPC/Gladstones are damaging their business and go back to the BPA where some semblance of honesty is required to progress things

[billybobyeeharrboy]

Just posting here.

 

So that I can send off EB's snotty letter by email to Gladdys and GXS

 

How do I save this post to favourites

[dx100uk]

uh??

 

that has absolutely nothing to do with filing the defence on your case

the time for this type of letter was when you got the Letter of claim months ago.

[ericsbrother]

you are months too late forthat BBYHB, read things carefully and take appropriate action.

You have a live claim that need addressing so telling them that they will suffer IF they ussue one wont have any positive effect.

However, in this thread I did point out that the harbour has its own byelaws so the parking co cnat claim a bean as they have n authority to create a liability.