DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18439--------------------------------------------------
LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: zunaster
Date: March 27, 2024, 9:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I received a PCN from CPM on May 10, 2023, at Charcot Road,
London, for parking in a commercial loading area only. I parked
for less than 2 minutes as I was dropping off someone. The
location did not appear to be a commercial area. I was offered a
discounted rate of £60, which I did not pay. Subsequently, I
received five letters from Debt Recovery Plus (DRP), all of
which I ignored. On February 15, 2024, a letter dated February
01, 2024, I received a Letter Before Claim (LBC) from
Gladstones. I have received response to my Subject Access
Request (SAR) from PCM on March 20, 2024 and have not had any
response from the Gladstones about the 30 days hold, the 30th
day for them to get back to me would be 01 April 24.
I'm wondering about the probability of winning this case. Any
guidance on what steps to take next would be greatly
appreciated. Thank you all.
[URL=
HTML http://imageshack.com/f/pooyQh7pj]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/924/oyQh7p.jpg[/URL]
HTML https://i.ibb.co/rvdf1SP/image-66264543.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/CWPsTZd
[URL=
HTML http://imageshack.com/f/poiPSr5pj]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/924/iPSr5p.jpg[/URL]
[URL=
HTML http://imageshack.com/f/pm2wl0myj]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/922/2wl0my.jpg[/URL]
[URL=
HTML http://imageshack.com/f/pnPvr1q1j]https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/xq70/923/Pvr1q1.jpg[/URL]
#Post#: 18447--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 27, 2024, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The signs appears to be prohibitive - no offer of consideration
is communicated to the class of people who are not driving
commercial vehicles. The charge is for breach of ANY of the
terms - so it is not making itself out to be an offer of the
right to park for £100.
Without an offer, there cannot be a contract, and the driver
cannot be bound by any promise he might have been deemed to have
made by parking there.
The driver would appear to have been trespassing, but that is
nothing to do with the PPC unless they happen to be the sole
lawful occupier.
#Post#: 18449--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: zunaster
Date: March 27, 2024, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Andy, the signage is incredibly perplexing.
Can you review the following draft of the email I intend to send
to Gladstones?
To Whom It May Concern,
I'm writing concerning the recent PCN issued by CPM. Upon
careful review, it's clear that the PCN was wrongly issued:
1. Ambiguous Signage: The parking signage is vague, offering no
clear terms for non-commercial vehicle drivers. This ambiguity
makes any alleged breach legally indefensible. Moreover, the
signage fails to specify any consideration for parking, leaving
drivers unaware of their obligations.
2. Contractual Deficiency: The PCN charges for breaching
unspecified terms without offering a clear parking agreement.
Without a solid offer, any alleged obligation on the driver is
baseless. Additionally, the lack of clarity surrounding the
terms of parking raises questions about the formation of a valid
contractual agreement.
Given these points, I urge you to reassess the PCN's validity
and conduct a thorough review. It's crucial that due process is
followed and that any decision made is grounded in legal
principles. Failure to address these concerns may result in
further action being taken.
Please confirm receipt of this appeal and assure me it will be
given proper consideration.
Sincerely,
#Post#: 18454--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 27, 2024, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Gladstones Solicitors are run by the people who run the IPC.
They know what's what and whet their members can seemingly get
away with.
Most posters on here will tell you that an LBC absolutely must
be responded to. I would say that that depends on the
circumstances. If you have some defence that the PPC would not
reasonably be expected to be aware of, and if the claim was
otherwise meritorious, then arguably it would be unreasonable to
waste everyone's time by letting them issue court proceedings
before disclosing your defence. However, in this case, your
defence is that their claim has no basis in law - something that
a PPC whose sole business model is threatening to take people to
court for breach of terms of parking, and their solicitors can
be expected to know.
Whether there is any value in showing them that you are aware of
the issue - in other words whether it will stop them issuing a
claim regardless - is anyone's guess.
#Post#: 18459--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 27, 2024, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: zunaster link ---
>
> 1. Ambiguous Signage: The parking signage is vague, offering
no clear terms for non-commercial vehicle drivers.
>
--- End Quote ---
I don't think it is vague. It's quite clear, and what it clearly
doesn't do, is make an offer to those in non-commercial
vehicles, aka yours.
--- Quote from: zunaster link ---
>
> leaving drivers unaware of their obligations
--- End Quote ---
If there is no contract, there are no contractual obligations.
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> Most posters on here will tell you that an LBC absolutely must
be responded to. [...] Whether there is any value in showing
them that you are aware of the issue - in other words whether it
will stop them issuing a claim regardless - is anyone's guess.
>
--- End Quote ---
I largely agree with Andy on this. I tend to avoid telling
people they absolutely must respond to LBC's unless the
circumstances warrant it. I do however, as a general rule, take
the stance that there are very few downsides to a well-written
response to an LBC. At worst, they continue with their claim,
which they would have done if you hadn't responded. At best,
they realise you're well informed and decide it's not worth
their time.
#Post#: 18463--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 27, 2024, 3:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that if that is the only sign, then I would
suggest that, using a standard lamp post for scale, that both
it, and in particular the text, are too small to put the driver
on notice of the restrictions before having had the opportunity
to get out of the car and read it up close. Whilst this (and
everything else) is irrelevant if no contract was formed, I
would suggest that even if an offer had been communicated, the
time that the OP has told us he was parked for would not have
been long enough for such an offer to have been accepted by
conduct.
Also, any particularly onerous terms in a consumer contract
formed from a written offer have no effect unless they are
prominently displayed.
N.B. Some judges, given the option, would feel more comfortable
finding as fact that the signage was insufficiently conspicuous
for acceptance to be deemed in that time, or that the onerous
term (£100 for ANY breach) insufficiently prominent to have
effect, than to say that all prohibitive signs that make no
positive offer to the class of which D is a member are
horsesh*t.
#Post#: 18473--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: b789
Date: March 27, 2024, 5:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Without seeing the back of the NtK, we can't be 100% sure, but
having seen other NtKs from CPM, they fail to adhere to the
requirements of PoFA. Whilst they claim to be able to hold the
keeper liable, they have not strictly adhered to Schedule 4,
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) in that there is no invitation for the
keeper to pay the charge.
I would advise not to reveal the identity of the driver. Whilst
this is an IPC company, the only way this is going to be beaten
is through a Plan D court claim.
I agree that responding to an LoC is not absolutely necessary,
especially when dealing with these roboclaim solicitors. I would
suggest that you only respond with a 30 day debt hold if you
need more time to get your evidence together. Otherwise, there
is no advantage wasting your time with Gladstone's.
Your defence to the claim, if/when it comes, will include no
liability as the keeper and the signage which is terrible. There
is no adequate notice of the charge for breaching the terms sit
is in a tiny font and barely visible. (another breach of PoFA...
2(3)(b)(ii)) plus anything else that the other advise.
#Post#: 19074--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: zunaster
Date: April 5, 2024, 5:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Without seeing the back of the NtK, we can't be 100% sure, but
having seen other NtKs from CPM, they fail to adhere to the
requirements of PoFA. Whilst they claim to be able to hold the
keeper liable, they have not strictly adhered to Schedule 4,
paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) in that there is no invitation for the
keeper to pay the charge.
>
> I would advise not to reveal the identity of the driver.
Whilst this is an IPC company, the only way this is going to be
beaten is through a Plan D court claim.
>
> I agree that responding to an LoC is not absolutely necessary,
especially when dealing with these roboclaim solicitors. I would
suggest that you only respond with a 30 day debt hold if you
need more time to get your evidence together. Otherwise, there
is no advantage wasting your time with Gladstone's.
>
> Your defence to the claim, if/when it comes, will include no
liability as the keeper and the signage which is terrible. There
is no adequate notice of the charge for breaching the terms sit
is in a tiny font and barely visible. (another breach of PoFA...
2(3)(b)(ii)) plus anything else that the other advise.
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Attached is back of the NtK
HTML https://i.ibb.co/pKZRx8y/2023-05-10-50108077-PCN.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/pKZRx8y
The only communication I've forwarded to Gladstones was the
response with a 30-day hold. However, I'm considering sending an
email to Gladstones outlining the following reasons:
1. Non-compliance with the requirements of PoFA. There's a
failure to strictly adhere to Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
as there's no clear invitation for the keeper to pay the charge.
2. Inadequate signage, including:
a) The only signage there has text size that is too small to
adequately inform the driver of the restrictions without exiting
the vehicle for a closer inspection. Thus, it wasn't conspicuous
enough for acceptance to be assumed within that time frame.
b) Onerous term of £100 for any breach was not sufficiently
prominent to be enforced.
3. Duration of parking (less than 2 mins): The duration was not
long enough for such an offer to be reasonably accepted through
conduct.
Andy, b789, DWMB2, I'd appreciate your input on the
aforementioned reasons. Rest assured, the identity of the driver
will remain confidential.
Separate note: before discovering a message in my inbox inviting
me to join this forum, I had already posted about this topic on
pepipoo. However, I must admit, I felt somewhat neglected there:
HTML http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=153415
#Post#: 19075--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 5, 2024, 5:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would lead with the point around signage, as in my view it's a
much stronger point than the PoFA one.
#Post#: 19077--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBC from Gladstones - PCM
DIR By: b789
Date: April 5, 2024, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I would not bother responding until a claim is
filed. In my experience, Gladstone’s are going to file a claim,
no matter what you put to them. You are dealing with a roboclaim
company with little to no human intervention and if there is, it
is likely to be intellectually malnourished to the point of
absurdity.
If/when a claim is filed, you will find the PoC woefully
inadequate. It will be another defence point that you may be
able to use the CEL v Chan appeal judgment as a preliminary
matter to get the claim struck out before any hearing.
You’ve responded once to the LoC. Save your ammo for the
defence.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page