Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello there,  I would be most grateful for any help or views on a distressing incident that occurred last summer, I can supply more info.  I am a 70 years old retired man and quite severely disabled I use a Mobilty Scooter and walking aids.  I had recently been admitted to hospital with an ongoing heart condition.     I was quite a frequent customer of my local Pub/Restaurant and I had previously submitted several verbal complaints regarding short measures of drinks.  The both managers took exception to this and told me that I was "Never happy until I found something to moan about"  The atmosphere in the Pub generally declined towards myself and I was certainly made to feel unwelcome.  Matters came to a head when I witnessed a dog, inside the Pub, attack a child (A Toddler) who had accidentally trodden on the Dog`s tail.  Fortunately the parents of the child and the owners of the dog reacted quickly and no injury occurred .  The pub was very busy at this time and the incident went somewhat unnoticed.  I brought the incident to the attention of one of the managers and he actually laughed, it was monstrous.  When the pub became quieter I remonstrated with the said manager and I stated that IMO it was dangerous to have dogs and children in such close proximity whist food is being served.  He became extremely unpleasant and told me in no uncertain terms that if I did not like it then to "Stop coming back"   Two days later whilst I was out in the next village with friends my wife rang to inform me that the Owner of the pub had called around to our home and told me wife that I was barred from the pub and to never venture there again; my wife was distressed, she never frequented the pub and the owner and my wife are not well known to each other.  It is my opinion that he had no right whatsoever, to include my wife in this matter and to do so within her own home whilst I was not present.      I returned home then went to the pub to enquire why the owner had visited my home, and upset my wife.  Whilst I was on the pub car park I was met by both the owner and the manager who both informed that I was barred as I had upset staff members.  No suitable explanation was forthcoming from the owner for the reason of his unwanted and unwelcome visit plus his aggressive manner whilst he talked down to my wife.  They both informed me that they would forcefully remove me if I did not leave the car park.   Due to the immense stress I was enduring I felt an urgent need to use the toilet, when i requested to do so I was denied.  I could not believe it, I was in such a hopeless state and was utterly distraught.  Finally I struggled out of the car park but entered the front of the pub and headed for the toilet however they caught up with me and I sat down on a stool and refused to move until i was granted access to the toilet, however they were both adamant that it would not be allowed.  I reminded them that i was disabled but the owner stated that I was `Milking It` and to "Go behind a hedge".  At least half an hour passed, since I had entered the pub, and the owner stated that he would call the Police, I had gathered my thoughts a little by this time and I stated to them that I would call the Police myself and then see if I would be allowed to use the toilets.  I feel the owner began to realise that he might be in trouble as when I began to make the phone call he stated that I could use the toilet however he would accompany me; i had no option but to concur with his somewhat sick condition.  I was forced to defecate whilst he stood immediately outside the door.  My humiliation and embarrassment was complete.    Two days later I wrote to the owner and informed that I was intending to sue him for disability discrimination related offences.  He chose to disregard what I had stated and replied stating that he had no intention of lifting the ban.  I replied stating that I had no desire to ever enter one of his pubs ever again and that he should re-read my letter and respond to the charges.  He did not reply.   I issued proceedings against him in the Small Claim Court for less than £400  (Some of my clothes and a she were damaged due to soiling).  He, rather surprisingly, instructed a solicitor who has threatened me with costs being awarded against me by the court which could run into many many thousands of pounds and that there was clearly no case for her client to answer.  I must admit to being rather alarmed.  The owner is a wealthy man.     The court have advised mediation and have even offered to award one hour of such FOC; I agreed, the defendant refused.  We now have a date for a hearing and I do not know exactly what to expect.  His court response states that he will be bringing two witnesses with him yet there was only he, the owner and the manager who were present.    Much of this was audio recorded and the owner is not disputing much of my statement.  I never threatened violence or used bad language during this most unpleasant incident.      Any help and opinions would be greatly appreciated.   Kind regards.  --  tibar
    • My friend has told them this and got no response as yet nor any refund,  she  is giving them till about 2pm  to refund it or   will be  reporting it as fraud and  seeing the Police etc, have told her please  do not ever  do it again or drag me into it, I will do my best keep you updated   Sandy xx
    • Make sure you keep that email and print it out for safe keeping, just in case the PPC don't quite get the message.
    • Okay i've just sent the letters recorded delivery and have registered with the claims court. Just reading about PAP.
  • Our picks

ceeferace

LPS/Gladstones Windscreen claimform - walked off site - Regent retail park, Loughborough, LE11 5PF

Recommended Posts

Name of the Claimant Local Parking Security Ltd

claimants Solicitors: Gladstones Solicitors 

 

Date of issue – 11th November 2019

 

Defence due: 13th December 2019

 

1.The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXX (the "vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the "contract") at Regent retail park (off-site) - Regent retail park, Loughborough, LE11 5PF on 16/09/18 thus incurring the parking charge (PCN).

 

2.The PCN was not paid within 28 days of issue.

 

3.The claimant claims the unpaid PCN from the defendant s the driver/keeper of the vehicle. Despite demands being made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

 

4.The claimant claims £85 for the PCN, £60.00 contractual costs pursuant to the contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £12.40 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8.00% per annum continuing at £0,03 per day. 

 

Value of the claim: £232.40

 

I sent a SAR to Local Parking Security Ltd who initially refused but have today sent photographs of my car parked.

 

We did park in the car park and did not exceed the 2 hour limit.

They are claiming that we went off-site but have no evidence to say that we did. 

 

We assumed that this was an error and ignored the calls and letters from the company but have now received this.

My husband did speak to them on the phone and explained that we went to a food outlet on the site but they were not interested. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Do you have a previous thread on this? If so, could you link us to it please?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't have a previous thread on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame you ignored the Letter of Claim, did you send an appeal at all?  Best acknowledge the claim on line at MCOL. follow the steps on this sticky

 

 

Gladstones POC is usually vague and as ANPR cannot catch a person leaving a site they have dropped themselves in it with GDPR as they would

be following a person with CCTV a no no for ANPR which just logs a car on and off. Do you have a bank statement showing a purchase from an outlet on the site if no reciept, all is not lost even at this stage, others will be along with further advice.

 

 


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, we have already acknowledged and are now trying to write the defence. 

 

The site is managed by a person rather than ANPR so it was a sticker on the windscreen. We used cash and had no receipt and to be honest just assumed it was an error and would all be ok once we called to explain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you get pictures of the signage at the entrance and on the site, and post them up as a multipge pdf, I'm sure others her will have some suggestions, and leaving the site is a dodgy one to try to sue on, as what evidence do they have, the attendant filming you leaving?


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will get some pictures ASAP. I hadn’t thought to get pictures as the dispute was about us leaving the site. 

 

They sent to response to the SAR today and I did wonder if they had pictures of us etc but they just have 5 pictures of the car within a 15 min timeframe with the sticker on the windscreen. 

 

The car park is free for up

to 2 hours for customers using the outlets. We were there for around an hour.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it was over a year ago, but can you remember what you purchased and the name of the shop?  Even if you paid by cash, purchases can still be tracked down. 


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so this was a windscreen PCN for the driver walking off the site?

 

scan up all the paperwork you have had to date and ignored to date 

including the front page of the letter of claim and the windscreen ticket.

 

you've been here long enough and have known about this PCN long enough to have read cag to conclude you should  NOT to have ignored the letter of claim

 

 

 

you have acknowledged the claim on MCOL [AOS]??

and sent a CPR 31:14?

 

your defence is due Friday by 4pm


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, AOS done. I sent an SAR is that the same? 

 

Yes, a windscreen PCN for walking off site.

I don’t have any of the paperwork sent previously. In the past when I’ve had similar tickets I was advised to ignore them, which is what I did. 

 

not by this site, and many years ago 

 

I threw the paperwork away, this is what I received from the parking company in response to the SAR. 

Scanbot 10 Dec 2019 07.03.pdf

 

Am I along the right lines?

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. 

2.The claimant is pursuing the registered keeper on the assumption that they were also the driver. 

3. There is no such obligation in law to identify the driver and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

4. It is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The claimant states that the registered keeper was "off-site" and have been unable to provide details of his this assumption has been made. The defendant used the KFC outlet situated on the site at the time of the parking charge. 

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. No signage is attached to the main entrance of the car park and therefore the driver did not enter any contract with the claimant. (To be checked).

7. Upon inspection of the signs after receiving the charge notice, the signage is unclear, they are located at a distance and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The signs do not comply with BPA Code of Practice.

8.Furthermore such is the density and complexity of the text on the sign that the most onerous term – the parking charge – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule
 (to be checked) 

9. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

10. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

11. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

12.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

13. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity. 

14. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff. 

15. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

16. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

17. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

18. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused. 

19. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover. 


Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name 

Signature


Date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

If you click on SAR, it has information and you'll see that you send it to the parking company.

 

AOS is to the court.

 

HB

 

4 hours ago, ceeferace said:

Yes, a windscreen PCN for walking off site.

I don’t have any of the paperwork sent previously. In the past when I’ve had similar tickets I was advised to ignore them, which is what I did. 

 

 

We wouldn't have adivsed to ignore a Letter Before Claim/Action.

 

HB

 

That reads like a witness statement. If you've just filed your AoS, you need a short defence which will normally be a few lines. There are plenty on other parking court cases.

 

HB

 

That reply to the SAR doesn't seem very detailed, but I've never seen a reply from a PPC before. Do you remember if you had a ticket on the windscreen on the day?

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we had a ticket. It was nearly 18 months ago and we heard nothing for a long time so didn’t keep it.

 

they sent those letters in response to the SAR and 5 pictures of the car. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ticket states for not displaying a valid ticket, isn't it free for 2 hours?   POC seems ambiguous as to reason.  I think the experts, like ericsbrother, and others will be able to dissect this forensically, Defence as HB says only needs 3 lines at this stage.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scanbot_10_Dec_2019_09.34.pdf

 

Pictures of there signs 

 

Can I email the CPR to the solicitor or would you advise to post it? They already have my email as I sent the SAR by email to the claimant and emailed then to request they stop processing the data (they refused). 

Edited by ceeferace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop using email, and block them, they have a nasty habit of using email to send things 11:59 pm day before hearing too late for you to respond.  Send it by post with a free proof of posting, is deemed received 3rd day by First Class post.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Stop using email, and block them, they have a nasty habit of using email to send things 11:59 pm day before hearing too late for you to respond.  Send it by post with a free proof of posting, is deemed received 3rd day by First Class post.

 

Will get to the post office now and avoid email. 

Draft defence, feedback much appreciated; 

 

I am the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim. The particulars of the Claim disclose no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:

 

1.    It is denied that the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at Regents Retail Park on 16thSeptember 2018. 

 

2.    No contract was formed or agreed between the registered keeper and Local Parking Security Limited. The contract between Local Parking Security Limited and the Landowner which gives Local Parking Security Limited the right to enter into contracts with the public has been requested and has not yet been supplied.

 

 

3.    This claim is has no legal standing and the case is requested to be dismissed under CPR 3.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so not for walking off site but no ticket.

 

defence is almost there.

let EB clarify, you have till friday

 


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could someone please take a quick look at my defence please so that I can send this evening. 

 

On 10/12/2019 at 11:32, dx100uk said:

so not for walking off site but no ticket.

 

defence is almost there.

let EB clarify, you have till friday

 


 

claim form says off-site but the ticket said not displaying a ticket. No ticket is needed if you are using the retail park. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be one or the other parking was free  so their evidence of the  written ticket ticket contradicts the reason for the Charge in their RobOclaim POC, hopefully EB will be in later with an opinion.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is post 1 the POC as EXACTLY written please 

doesn't say off site ??

 


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes;

.The driver of the vehicle with registration XXXX (the "vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage (the "contract") at Regent retail park (off-site) - Regent retail park, Loughborough, LE11 5PF on 16/09/18 thus incurring the  parking charge (PCN).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

read VCS v Ibbotson


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The POFA makes it clear that they have to say what the breach is on both the screen ticket and the NTK.

Now their claim is using autofill to avoid this problematical dichotomy so you need to ram it home but not yet.

 

All you need is a short denial of a breach of contract and thus no clause for action against you or anyone else.

I would also drop all of the flowery language that you have found online,

no-one down my pub speaks like that so common english please.

 

We need to see the wording of the signs to make sense of anything they claim and it will make it easier to rubbish then.

At the moment they havent said what it is you have done to make them sue you and although this is a starter for 10 to bite them with it will be wise to have a bit more but no need to write a book just to say "I didnt do it guv"

 

Their NTK is not POFA complaint as it doesnt say who the creditor is ( funny they cant even copy 2 lines of text from the POFA) so no keeper liability Against

 

you will need to aquaint yourself with the wording of the POFA very thoroughly by the time this gets to court (if it does) as many judges havent read it but think they know what it says and make bad decisions based on their beliefs rather than the law so you need to educate yours and get the right decision.

 

Also look at the ticket/NTK and match exactly the relevant land with the description. 

My reading of "off site" means a roadway or similar rtaher than an enclosed car park so show a doubt as to where and they lose again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, I have uploaded pictures of the signs;

 

How about;

 

I am the defendant and deny liability for the entirety of the claim.

The particulars of the Claim disclose no cause of action on the following grounds:

 

1.    It is denied that the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at Regents Retail Park on 16thSeptember 2018. 

 

2.    No contract was formed or agreed between the registered keeper and Local Parking Security Limited. 

 

 

3.    This claim is has no clause of action against the defendant or anyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

top line

i am the registered keeper of vehicle reg XXXXXX [ replace the defendant bit] ...and deny..

 

re 1 never say registered keeper. say the driver 

same for 2 

 

 


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...