Premier Park in Royal Wootton Bassett, Station Road

[FitToWin]

A friend of mine has been issued with a Parking Charge Notice in June last year and I'm currently helping her fight it. Hundreds of innocent motorists have been caught out by these ruthless tyrants and I feel strongly that the circumstances of her case are so unfair that she shouldn't pay and have her day in court! My friend was still within her 'free period' time, but unfortunately did not enter her registration details into the payment machine. However, the large banner, one of many signs admittedly, was obscured as it had been partially blown over by the wind, so my friend only saw 'free parking for 30 minutes' (picture attached). I've appealed to Premier Park and POPLA, but both have rejected. CAB were about as helpful as a hole in the head, as they advised to pay and try and claim back later. REALLY? She's now had a standard letter from their solicitors Gladstones demanding £150. I understand from what I've researched that these cowboys can just take you to court anyway with their own representative, which you need to contest their right of representation. In short, if we continue to ignore their letters, she could end up with a CCJ, as they have a fast track in bringing these cases to court. Obviously, one would think with the amount of people that I know are refusing to pay these outrageous parking invoices, it would not be financially viable to take people to court. However, with this 'fast track' option, it's a good earner for them. Does anyone have any advice, as we are determined NOT to pay as this just entrapment! Many thanks

[ostell]

There is no fast track to court, it is the Money claim on Line path to the Small Claims court available to anyone.
The letter from Gladstones was probably not Gladstones, check the details of who the are asking you to pay

That photo of the sign should do well in court.

What made you think they had a fast track to court and a CCJ? They still have to go through the normal court process: Issue a claim, a defence is sent to the court, the court move the claim to the defendants local court and give a date and then there is the hearing. A CCJ is recorded only if they actually take it to court and if you lose and if you don't pay within a month

[Laticsforlife]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but that poster actually says,

"Machine For a Free" on the top line.

I'm not being daft, but if I saw that I'd wonder what that meant and at least read the machine or another sign to see.

And you've admitted there were several other signs, so you can't use the poor signage argument, IMO.

I reckon you'd lose in court on that argument alone, so don't purely rely on it.

[FitToWin]

There is no fast track to court, it is the Money claim on Line path to the Small Claims court available to anyone.
The letter from Gladstones was probably not Gladstones, check the details of who the are asking you to pay

That photo of the sign should do well in court.

What made you think they had a fast track to court and a CCJ? They still have to go through the normal court process: Issue a claim, a defence is sent to the court, the court move the claim to the defendants local court and give a date and then there is the hearing. A CCJ is recorded only if they actually take it to court and if you lose and if you don't pay within a month

Hi, thanks for your reply. I probably used the wrong term 'fast track', I'll try and explain properly. From what I've read and understand, these people can take you to court via a Roboclaim. This is what I've copied from the article :

" It is widely suspected that Gladstones Solicitors operate a largely automated system for issuing county court claims (sometimes referred to as ‘roboclaims’). It is suspected that operators provide details of the parking charge that are then put into templates and issued by Gladstones. The problem with this is that the letter that lands on motorists doormats does not adequately explain the claimants case to the standard expected by the ‘practice directions’ of the court system. This actually puts the motorist at a significant disadvantage since they have no experience with the court system, and might expect that a regulated solicitors firm is acting appropriately. If the claim is not explained clearly, then a motorist cannot file a meaningful defence in response.

It is not known what Gladstones charge for their services, but each claim has a £50 legal representative cost added onto the original ticket value. Frequently other charges for things such as debt recovery are added to the claim to inflate it as much as possible. When claims go undefended and are awarded by default, these charges are automatically awarded. It is likely that this is a lucrative business for Gladstones.

Should the claim go to hearing (i.e. it is not settled before), then Gladstones will send a representative to the court on behalf of the parking company. The representatives are typically hired for the day, and charge a few hundred pounds for their services – they might not even have right of audience. Since the representative only gets the claim just before the hearing, they have no detailed knowledge of the case and are frequently unprepared. However, given they are legal professionals, they still have a large advantage over a member of the public with no court experience. In the small claims court, legal representation is not usually awarded since that goes against the principle of a small claims court, but its not unusual for the representative to cheekily request their costs anyway. If argued properly, even if the claim is upheld by the court, the inflated charges added on to the claim can be challenged and not awarded.

When ‘roboclaim’ cases do reach a hearing, the nature of the system frequently unravels. Since the claim process is performed as cheaply as possible, when charges are put under scrutiny of a well researched and argued defence, the claims frequently fail. In some cases, the claims fail on a technical legal basis or that the judge finds there was no breach. However, if defences are not well researched, then it is likely that many of these claims succeed anyway given that they have representation of a professional solicitor who can think on their feet better than a member of the public.

If Gladstones make a claim against you that goes to hearing, make sure you question their representative’s right of audience. Often they do not, meaning the case could get struck out before even arguing the case itself!"

I don't know who they're asking to pay, as my friend ripped up the letter. No doubt they will write again, so will have a look.

Thanks again

[FitToWin]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here, but that poster actually says,

"Machine For a Free" on the top line.

I'm not being daft, but if I saw that I'd wonder what that meant and at least read the machine or another sign to see.

And you've admitted there were several other signs, so you can't use the poor signage argument, IMO.

I reckon you'd lose in court on that argument alone, so don't purely rely on it.

Hi

Yes admittedly, the word 'machine' should have raised alarm bells, but my friend didn't question this. As for the other signage, she didn't read as she thought after seeing 'free parking' on this sign that was sufficient. I did point out in my arguments for her defence, why would anyone look for other signs if they'd read the main banner and understood that parking was free for 30 minutes.

I would still help her have her day in court, as it's about time these parking cowboys were challenged and stopped. They are just there to make easy money from motorists. If there were no offer of free parking, then people wouldn't be caught out. They need to make ALL parking chargeable and then there can be no misunderstandings. Like I've said before, it's just entrapment.

Thanks for your reply.