Gemini/gladstones claimform - Windscreen PCN Queens hosp Romford - P+D ticket !***Claim Dismissed***

[ericsbrother]

write as I suggested, it doesnt matter about being rude,

the notice and signage is garbage anyway so they wont win a court claim.

 

If they reject the "appeal" then they are obliged to provide a POPLA code.

 

You can then argue the reasoning properly but dont waste any sweat on this.

[2ltr16valve]

Claim received today !

 

I didnt post the appeal !

Found it in stack of paperwork ....

Ive been snowed under last 3 months with my partner being pregnant with twins

shes been very ill in and out of hospital (ironclly queens !)

as well as trying to work in Ambulance Service.

I thought had appealed and they dropped it.

 

Not received any further corrospondence from them for months...

 

Name of the Claimant ? Gemini Parking Solutions

 

Date of issue – 04 Dec 2017

 

date to ack - 22 December.

 

date to file defence 5th Jan 2018 ?? (is this right with holidays ?) no now corrected - dx

 

What is the claim for –

 

The particulars of claim -

1.The Driver of the vehicle registration ******* ('the vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 02/02/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at Queens Hospital - Queens Hospital Rom Valley Way Romford Essex RM70AG

 

2.The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle.

3.AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

£160 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable,

together with interest of £9.62 persuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at £0.04 per day.

 

What is the value of the claim? 244.62

 

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Parking charge (Private)

 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after 2007? no agreement ?

 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Gemini Parking

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? none

 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that Im aware

 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Default sums” – at least once a year ? No

 

Why did you cease payments? Never paid anything

 

What was the date of your last payment? None made

 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No

 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan?

no

 

AOS - done. Defend all.

[dx100uk]

wrong stickie but never mind

 

you need to send a CPR 31:14 to gladdy's

 

to the solicitors

 

[Your address]

.

 

[Their address [solicitors]

.

[Date]

.

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

.

Re: (Claimant's name) v (Your name) Case No:

.

CPR 31.14 Request

.

On (date) I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the (Name) county court.

.

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim.

.

Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of [each of the following / the] document(s) mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

.

1. the contract between [parking company name] and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name,.

.

2.proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007

.

3.copies of the notice to driver, notice to keeper and any other correspondence from [insert Claimant Name] & [insert Solicitors Name} to the defendant that they intend to rely upon in court.

.

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31 duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are disclosed at your earliest convenience..

.

Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy.

.

Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will have a right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case.

.

Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party.

.

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request.

.

If you are unable to comply with this request within 14 days and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request please confirm in your response.

.

You are reminded that as this case is yet to be allocated to a track, CPR31:14 does apply, a refusal to comply because you 'think' at this stage you dont have too will be used against you in any filed defence.

.

 

Yours faithfully

.

TYPE YOUR NAME DO NOT SIGN IT

[2ltr16valve]

Thank you

 

Should we include where they have said in their POC about - “The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle”.

 

They don’t know who was driving as it’s never been disclosed.

 

Also just found a letter from Gladstones which just got put aside, received around August time where they reference to the case of The supreme court case of Beavis v Parking Eye [2015]. Saying that, this recently confirmed the lasfulness of charges based in contract and thir recoverability in Civil Law.

 

I dont know if this has any relevance

[dx100uk]

send the 31:14 nothing to change at all.

 

stop jumping ahead of things.

 

follow the std procedure as with any speculative invoice claimform thread here

[2ltr16valve]

Thank you sent signed for as is, Just including details needed.

[ericsbrother]

didnt write so got a claim form.

that is what usually happens.

 

They think that you will let them win by a walkover now and that you are burying your head in the sand.

 

PE v Beavis irrelevant to this,

that is about parking co's being able to claim £80 when thier costs are zero for commercial consideration reasons.

 

For the moment you are just going to acknowledge the claim before the 22/12 and in a separate letter demand sight of their evidence, which they arent going to give you.

 

You will have enough time to then add this to your skeleton defence so you need to get the letter out pronto.

 

You will then make sure the court has the defence by the 5/1/18 and possibly include a letter asking for summary dismissal of the claim

 

The court service has fixed time frames and holidays do not come into this.

 

So, if you are off to the Canary Islands for a month you had better get very busy today Other than that submit defence after they have had their time to respond and as said, use the no reply against them

[2ltr16valve]

Hi bud

 

The cpr letter was posted yesterday defence not started yet.

 

Not off to anywhere unfortunately but do have twins being born on 12/12 ! ...

thank you for your reply

[ericsbrother]

then smack them this weekend.

You can use moneyclaimonline to proceed with this if you wish,

just acknowledge at the moment

and use the extra fortnight to get your defnece in.

 

As siad, this will allow them to shoot themselves in the foot,

Gladstones do this on the cheap so they dont want to spend their money doing things that eat up time and their money.

 

they would rather let their clients lose by presenting a poorly prepared claim than put a bit of effort into it.

 

They still get paid whatever the outcome, it is just a different person who foots the bill.

[2ltr16valve]

Done AOS yesterday too, just defence to do now

 

I’m thinking along lines of strict proof of whom was driving at the time as in their POC they state driver was registered keeper ? Lol

 

Also,

was told by the site security that could park anywhere outside with a disabled badge

- prior to Gemini taking over, signage is same size etc just wording changed.

So unless went round with a torch wouldn’t see it.

 

Also, if view pdf further up ..

will see that there is no readable signage on entry to that section of the car park therefore can’t enter a code tract if can’t see the signage ?

Also hidden by bush at the time.

[DragonFly1967]

Read it again, they won't state that the driver was the registered keeper, they'll use the phrase, "the driver and/or the registered keeper", which keeps it just this side of the truth.

 

All of the parking companies try to word it in such a way so that the people they're writing to panic & pay up. Once you realise how these companies work (all of them), you'll see that most of what they say is only just on the right side of fact and they'll try to dress it up as much as possible to get you to part with your hard earned.

[2ltr16valve]

Ah I see play on words, crafty so an so’s

[ericsbrother]

they are relying on this not being spotted and challenged as they know there is no keeper liability and so they cant sue keeper in that capacity.

 

They hope the judge decides you were driving or that by not naming driver you are being evasive.

 

Has worked once as far as I know but failed loads of times.

 

They wil then try other methods of confusion like claimng elliot V loake and CPS v AJH films are relevant

( well might be if your butler was driving)

[2ltr16valve]

Cool .

Thing is the partner and I are both insured and both have blue badges ...

I’m not sure a CC judge can order disclosure of who was driving for this either can they ?

[DragonFly1967]

They probably could, but I'll guarantee they won't. Most judges (it seems) are as fed up of the parking companies as the rest of us.

 

Besides, if you were asked "Who was driving the car on that day"? A reply of, "I don't remember" would leave them with nowhere to go.

[ericsbrother]

I dont remember leaves a gate open, a categoric "it wasnt me" if that is true is better as it leaves the parking co with no argument at all..

[2ltr16valve]

All I recall was taking our son to A&E due to a severe reaction to antibiotics - I can not recall who was driving on that occasion as we’ve many visits to A&E due to chronic tonsillitis , your honour

 

[ericsbrother]

Really?

then you are likely to suffer as a result.

 

Either state it wasnt you when asked

or use the requiremt for them to produce "strict proof" of who the driver was at the time.

 

Be on the front foot rather than defensive.

this wishy washy coyness is no good

that is why judges make determiantions on the liklihood of who was driving when there is doubt.

 

They know that it can never be proven but they dont need to,

just take balance of probability

 

never give them reason to doubt your version of events.

[2ltr16valve]

Ah okay see what you mean, so other half to outright say she wasn’t driving.

[ericsbrother]

correct.

They the have no reason to chase her and they know it.

 

No-one is obliged to name the driver or even self incriminate,

the muppets are suing a named person in a set capacity

 

(they cant even get that right on the paperwork

so dont let that slip past the judges attention)

 

Once it is shown they are not chasing the right entity they are stuffed

that is why they tell lies and hope that irrelevent case law is considered

( elliot v loake and CPS v AJH films being their favorite)

[2ltr16valve]

What’s the bits in brackets bud ?

Ty

[DragonFly1967]

They're criminal cases that the likes of BWL & Gladstones are very fond of using.

 

They're of absolutely no relevance in a civil case of course, but they're still hoping that they'll be able to find a Judge that doesn't know that.

 

So far, they've failed (somewhat spectacularly in some cases) but they just keep on trying

 

Have a look here to see why they aren't relevant.

[2ltr16valve]

Thank you for the link.

 

How does POFA link in here ?

[ericsbrother]

this is your homework,

you look them up and then try to understand why they arent relevant.

 

I will give you a clue for the second one,

you dont employ a chauffeur do you?

If so then you are responsible for him running a red light unless you warned him not to.

 

they are saying that anyone driving your car is your "servant" as the law before insurance became compulsory always assumed that people did use staff to drive them around.

[2ltr16valve]

Hi all,

 

The more I read the thread and associated cases to do with gemini, I am more and more confused !

 

I think they are trying to imply that the RK is responsible for whatever anyone does driving their vehicle

.... which is an old assumption ?

which is not the case here as I am not emplyeed as my partners butler or anything in fact.

 

The contactal side of things ?

Its not possible to read the contact without parking first,

by which time the contact is accepted ??

as the sign on entry to the car park is facing the other way so you can not see it.

 

Any and all help would be very much appreciated,

Ive been snowed under and sleep deprived

- my twin boys were born on 13/12

so things have been hectic .