CPS UK/Gladstones PCN Claimform - Spring Street, on 02/03/2022 ***Claim Discontinued***

[TS6014]

Sorry guys forgot to hide my name. 

 

I have heard back from Gladstone's today. They've basically sent everything that I received in the SAR from cps. However, they have sent pictures of signs that are not in the car park, and have wording on them that is different. 

 

They also spoke about contracts by saying this 

 

"Without concession any contract entered at the time of the incident was between you and our Client and therefore the doctrine of 'privity' applies. In view of this it is irrelevant what our Client's agreement with any third party contained. In any event, we confirm that our Client did have such authority, but given that the contractual arrangement between our Client and their Client is commercially sensitive, it will only be disclosed should it be necessary for a Court to view it"

 

[miley_b ob]

2 minutes ago, TS6014 said:

Sorry guys forgot to hide my name. 

 

I have heard back from Gladstone's today. They've basically sent everything that I received in the SAR from cps. However, they have sent pictures of signs that are not in the car park, and have wording on them that is different. 

 

They also spoke about contracts by saying this 

 

"Without concession any contract entered at the time of the incident was between you and our Client and therefore the doctrine of 'privity' applies. In view of this it is irrelevant what our Client's agreement with any third party contained. In any event, we confirm that our Client did have such authority, but given that the contractual arrangement between our Client and their Client is commercially sensitive, it will only be disclosed should it be necessary for a Court to view it"

 

Can you upload everything they have sent you. The pictures of the signs could be very useful to you.

[FTMDave]

OK, this is good news.  They have refused to show you the contract between the Neanderthals and the landowner, and they have refused to show planning permission (because of course as you & miley_b ob found out, they don't have it).

 

So later down the line in your Witness Statment you can state you don't believe they have these permissions.

 

The dodgy signs are good news too as miley_b ob says.  If they are stupid enough to include these in their Witness Statement you can show them up as the liars they are.

 

Make sure you keep a file with photos of the real signs that you took and those that are on miley_b ob's thread, and a separate one with the liars' false signs.

[TS6014]

This is what they've sent. The signs in the car park do not have that writing on them. They don't have the blue badge note on them or they don't have the note about 100pound fine at the bottom of the yellow 

signage Gladstone's sent .pdf

[FTMDave]

Good.  So the retards have lied to their own solicitors by supplying a false sign.  All info you can use against them.

[Nicky Boy]

On the "real" signs actually in place, significantly, there is no mention of the consequences of "breaching" the terms and conditions.

 

If read literally, it seems that they want to charge you £100 to park there!

 

(Which is of course totally at odds with the fees quoted on entry sign).

[TS6014]

I agree Nicky it doesn't really mention any costs aside from the £100. They also sent this map of the car park. 

 

It has ANOTHER different post code on it. This is getting silly now

Spring St Map ANPR.pdf

 

@lookinforinfo thank you for your post. Missed it at first however some great reassurance! 

 

Also when I've requested documents. Neither CPS or Gladstones have sent anything regarding the claim. Like no letter before claim etc. Just the original pcn and reminder. 

[lookinforinfo]

 

If you live closeish to the car park it would help to spoil the crroks day if you had photos of their actual signs and positioning . When the judge sees the discrepancies that will cast doubt on the rest of their testimony especially considering they have averred that their Witness statement is true.

 

[TS6014]

I will do that thank you. I've got a photo of the actual signs. I took some from the point of view of a driver too. It shows how easily missed they are due to being covered by other cars. 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry you have taken enough pictures of the signage already and they should be more than enough. First the entrance sign is a joke it should show that it is a paying car park;  that the T&Cs are inside the park; that there are ANPR cameras  and it should include the logos of  CPS and the IPC to" add confidence to the motorist".  They are so funny.

 

As Nicky Boy has already mentioned on their signs the T&Cs are in yellow. There are three of them. The ones in blue are not part of the T&Cs so there is nothing that says you have to pay £100 at all nor can they add on additional fees.  And while the driver didn't apparently pay to park that could have been because of the lack of information at the entrance which was hardly offer to trade let alone a notice instructing drivers they were entering private land which had a contract attached.  In any event, if the driver did not pay, they would not have entered into a contract anyway and they would be treated as trespassers which only land owners can deal with not CPS.

 

[TS6014]

So out of curiosity this morning I called the number on the signs in the car park. (Not from my phone number though). I just wanted to see if it was another fail, since they've put different addresses on everything etc. 

 

It's an automated payment line for the parking fines they issue. Quite odd how they'd have that straight away on their signs I think. I thought it might have been a way to contact CPS. 

[brassnecked]

They don't want to let anyone actually speak to them, they just want the money so its hard to find an actual contact number to speak to them on.

[TS6014]

Also, I have edited the reminder letter they sent so you can't see my name and I'll upload it again. 

 

In the original PCN they mention POFA but in the reminder letter they still say they want the driver. Should they have sent another letter saying the keeper is now liable or anything?  

edited reminder letter .pdf

[dx100uk]

2 hours ago, TS6014 said:

It's an automated payment line for the parking fines they issue. 

 

FINE??

where does anything say that its a FINE?

 

dx

 

[TS6014]

 You're right it doesn't 

Edited October 15, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[dx100uk]

and this is a VERY important thing to remember!

 

only a magistrate can FINE YOU.

 

dx

 

[TS6014]

Got it, thanks. So is the keeper automatically liable? Or do they have to send you a letter saying the keeper is now liable. Because the reminder just asks for the driver 

[brassnecked]

The keeper is not automatiucally liable, they have the hurdles contained in POFA to overcome, and even then they usually mess it up in some way, and the Keeper is under no legal obligation whatsoever  to name the driver. They cannot force a keeper to name the driver.  Civil Enforcement  and a couple of PPC's tried threatening Keeper's with a Norwich Pharmacal Order to force them to name a driver,  around 2010/11 pre POFA, but that was soon killed off as being too expensive  to obtain as costs unrecoverable, and also was a sledgehammer to crack a grape.

[TS6014]

Thanks mate 

[TS6014]

I put my defense in last week and this morning received a letter from gladstones saying they intend to proceed with the claim. They have sent a directions questionnaire. 

 

[miley_b ob]

What did you say in your defense?

[TS6014]

I made points about not being the driver, pofa stating they can only claim the original parking charge from a keeper.

 

The fact they sent correspondence to the wrong address.

 

Lack of landowners permission and inadequate signage.

 

I also mentioned adding the 70 pound contractual costs was unreasonable.

 

I didn't go into lots of detail or add any photos or anything like that or talk about the specifics of their NTK

 

however I did say due to the POC being unspecific on facts and made it difficult to respond at the time of sending it. 

[dx100uk]

As you'll see if you read like threads, they always send a letter and DQ to intimidate and harass defendants. If they actually filed it to the court, that's another matter.

 

Watch mcol status for when it says dq's were/if sent out 

 

Might be best to post your full defence up. We don't normally recommend people file anything bar our bland generic one.

 

Dx

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

TS.

 

You should be reading other threads to bone up on the process...  If you had, you'd know about the standard defence and the reasons for it.

Most important... submit anything you're going to commit in writing here first for the experts to run their eyes over it.

[TS6014]

Sorry guys messed up a bit by not sending your generic defense. My own fault. I missed the standard defense.

 

MCOL hasn't been updated with anything yet a part from the defense being received