Minster Baywatch ANPR PCN - Cotswold, Lakeside Car Park GL7 5LU

[Kaleidosky]

I'm unsure what to do next, would my next step be to request a CCA Request from Gladstones Solicitors or fill in the information provided from the pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf document? 

 

Just finished reading the Pre-Action Protocol page and it states not to use POP details and to ask this thread for a suitable letter for the Letter Before Claim stage.

[dx100uk]

all you need is one of ericsbrothers snotty letters sent to gladstone already.

 

plenty of them here in existing threads

which ofcourse you've been researching as advised earlier

CAG is self help too

 

use our search top right.

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

Have a look at post 16 here: https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427885-link-parking-pcn-now-bw-legal-lba-residential-parking-collingwood-place-gloucester-gl1-3na/?tab=comments#comment-5074291

 

You need to send something similar.  This is just an example.  Emphasise the signs are rubbish and illegal and they have made up £55 of invented fees.

 

Please post up a draft of what you propose to send when you're ready.

 

[Kaleidosky]

Ok, thank you for the responses. I have just finished my letter now and hopefully it's good enough.

 

Dear Gladstones Solicitors,

 

Much appreciated in providing me with a letter before claim, it’s helped me understand how to fight against these types of con artists for the future.

 

Just to be clear, I have no interest what so ever in paying the £155 since it is a made-up ridiculous fee with no explanation behind the justification of this ludicrous sum of money you are trying to rob from me.

 

Photographs of the poorly maintained site with the poorly placed written signs have been taken by the driver and will be confidently provided for evidence in court. The driver did obey the best a person could to your client’s badly written signs. There seems to be no planning permission by the council either for the ANPR cameras to be installed in this area.

 

First it is a criminal offence, which means your client has failed at the first hurdle of their Code of Conduct- that they must comply with all laws relating to the running of the car park. It also calls into question their ability to be able to collect data from the DVLA.

 

They are in breach of the Town and Country [advertisements] Regulations 2007 by not having the necessary permission despite the fact that it is illegal not to have permission and a contract cannot be formed from an illegal act. However the offence is also covered by The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 - Section 5 Misleading Actions [3] ]b]  

 

Always give crooks long enough rope to hang themselves with. I look forward in seeing how your clown scam tactics play out in court.

 

(only include reference number and full name here?)

 

I can only respond through Gladstone online Reply Form unless I request a paper version of the Reply Form instead. Should I get the paper version so I can use Royal Mail to send the letter that way?

[dx100uk]

i would not be including anything after ....rob me.

don't ever mention anything about what your future defence etc might be...don't play your cards.

 

you don't need to use their forms at all nor bother with them.

 

dx

 

 

 

[Kaleidosky]

Ok thank you for the wise advice, I will reamend my response and get it sent to them via Royal Mail (with proof of postage) tomorrow.

 

 

[dx100uk]

you missed the end bit out insulting gladdy's

 

I note your clients are claiming £xxx Unicorn Food Tax.  I'm sure you read DDJ Harvey's judgement in Lewes on 24 April.  Not very happy with these made up amounts, was he?

 

Your clients can either drop this madness now or get a good hiding in court.  Up to them.  I quite fancy a well overdue holiday once all this COVID stuff is over and your clients' financing it after an unreasonable costs order under CPR27.14(2)(g) would do nicely.

 

COPIED TO XXXX PARKING"

[FTMDave]

I agree with dx, less in more, certainly when it comes to telling them where their clients have messed up legally.  I also agree about including the paragraphs about going for unreasonable costs.  The Unicorn Food Tax in your case is £55.

 

However, a couple of things.  Instead of "Dear Gladstones Solicitors" write "Dear Will & John".  These are the two spivs who run Gladstones (and the IPC and the IAS, no conflict of interest there!)  Forum regular Ericsbrother always starts his letters this way and if they put two and two together they'll know they are on to a spanking if they do do court.

 

Also write "COPIED TO MINSTER BAYWATCH" at the bottom and invest in another second class stamp and send to them too.  This is because Gladstones have loads of previous of getting their clients to start court claims that have no chance of success, after all it's £££££ in for them.  Let the PPC know too they will have to foot a hefty bill if they are stupid enough to try court.  Get two free Certificates of Posting from the post office.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by FTMDave
Typo

[Kaleidosky]

Ok I sent off my letter to Gladstone and MB, now the waiting game. I showed MSE and National Consumer Service my letter before claim response and the majority people were not impressed with my letter.

 

But after reading this quote on CAG, it feels like the next best approach regardless: ''No, it is not a joke reply. The more you show these con artists respect the more they will try to fleece you. Don't fill in their Section D. Treat them with contempt. They're not the police or the council, they have no right to this money and they know it.''

 

I still feel I've made the right decision but I feel doubtful at times with the wide amount of different opinions people have approaching this situation on the MSE and National Consumer Service forums.

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

 

I'll be frank with you, I know nothing about MSE and NCS and I wouldn't slag off sites I know nothing about.

 

In my own case I stumbled across CAG due to seeing signs about private parking charges in car parks, I wanted to be able to defend myself, and bit by bit I've seen the strategy generally works.  No guarantees of course, there is an opposition which we have to second guess!  However, look at the thread of successes against these crooks  

      and there are many.

[lookinforinfo]

Well it probably doesn't matter too much what you say in your response to their LBC providing it is not naive and yours certainly isn't that. They will take note of it as they will have seen others that have been similarly written so will be expecting a strong defence and may well decide not to turn up in Court. Which is why it was phrased that way.

Edited October 21, 2020 by lookinforinfo

[Kaleidosky]

I'm generally convinced that there is at least 2 users on MSE that's in my thread that has friends or family or even themselves that have similar line of work to MB or Gladstone.

 

I don't mind different opinions but they're just throwing out playground insults to me for using that letter saying I'm stupid, prat, idiot etc etc for doing it and not including in the letter without prejudice so it can't be used against me in court. I think I'll leave MSE and just stick with CAG in this case.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Sorry to hear about the "playground insults". 

 

The fact you didn't write "without prejudice" means the letter could be produced in court, not that the PPCs ever seem to do so.  Well, so what?  Minister Baywatch HAVE made up fictitious charges.  Courts HAVE told the PPCs off for this numerous times.  DDJ Harvey DID go ballistic about this.  I don't' see what's wrong in refuting a claim and referring to a persuasive court case to back up your position. 

[Adviseneeded]

Is there any update on your case Kaleidosky? I'm drafting my reply to Letter Before Claim as we speak and would be interested to see how you got on with yours.

[Kaleidosky]

Gladstone sent pictures when the driver was rightfully parked at Lakeside car park, they sent the pictures of Riverside car park. The driver was confused by the pictures and the driver expects the case to be dismissed but if not, I am looking forward toward my defence.

 

*Sorry the drivers defence...

Edited December 27, 2020 by Kaleidosky

[Adviseneeded]

Interesting, that's the second case of that happening I've read today. Looks like they've scored an own goal there. Best of luck with it all

[Kaleidosky]

Thank You, I have no court case experiences but I strongly believe this is my getaway card. I sent an email for Subject Access Request and inadequate signs entering the car park to hopefully win this one.

[Adviseneeded]

I have also submitted a SAR as I did not receive any PCN or correspondence prior to the Letter Before Claim. So im finding it difficult to construct a letter to Gladstone's as I don't have any information to go from. 

[dx100uk]

post that on your own thread please!!

 

dx

 

[TheAcoustician]

What was the outcome of the court case Kaleidosky? I've had a parking fine come through for the same car park (parked for 12 mins as my wife was feeling unwell) so am interested to know how your case has gone.

[dx100uk]

its NOT A FINE

 

please create your own topic by hitting create in the top red banner

 

dx