Gladstone's threaten court for £70 costs

[hyciebee]

Hello.
I had a thread last year about parking with a wheel just over the white line. I had stupidly admitted I was driving when I appealed. It was just after the last lockdown and CPM said my appeal was late so I sent a cheque for £60 which they refused, saying that I owed £100. I answered their letters (debt collectors) but didn't pay until I got the Gladstone's Solicitors letter demanding £170. I got advice here on the forum that they're not allowed to collect more than £100 for these private parking charges, so fed up with it all I sent Gladstone's a cheque for £100 quoting the Freedoms Act 2015. Gladstone's cashed the cheque immediately (August 2023)
Now, 6 months later, Gladstone's have written me again saying I have only reduced my balance to their client and I still owe £70. They say;
"The signs indicate the applicable charge for failing to comply with the terms of the sign is £100.00, however, the sign is clear that enforcement action may incur additional costs for which the motorist will be liable on an indemnity basis"
Each time I've written them I've explained that I live on a state pension and this is causing me financial hardship. They are still relentless.
All advice is greatly appreciated.

[des8]

So you write back to them that they are talking poppycock.

As they admit the sign states "the sign is clear that enforcement action may incur additional costs" you point out to them


that the unspecified "additional costs" term on the parking signs is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the driver
Also mention that section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. (CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.
however the term referring to the additional costs on the signage are neither transparent nor intelligible in that they are unspecified additional charges.
The sign failed to explain what charges their client was seeking to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14).
Consequently, the term was unfair and was not binding on the Driver pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015
Additionally In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. the S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).
.You believe their claim for unspecified costs additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that will permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b))
:Suggest they read the judgment G4QZ465V (Excel Parking Services Ltd vs Wilkinson - 1st July 2020) where District Judge Jackson considered a similar claim to be an abuse of process under the The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Sch 2 and section 61/ 61(1)/ 67). He found that striking out the claim was the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court could be shown.

I think you have in fact paid them £160, so you could add that if they continue to court with their claim viewing your total payments of £170 , you will be counterclaiming and in addition report their unreasonable behaviour in their pursuit of you to the Solicitors Regulation Authority

[hyciebee]

THANK YOU DES8!! I'm so grateful for your help and advice, I'm about to do the letter right now!
I will let you know how it goes. This might not be much to you but I was so stressed by these people and you have helped so much.
I'm VERY grateful!

[hyciebee]

Des, one thing though: They didn't cash the first cheque for £60. So the total I paid was £100. Should I leave out the part saying I've paid them £160?

I think you have in fact paid them £160, so you could add that if they continue to court with their claim viewing your total payments of £170 , you will be counterclaiming and in addition report their unreasonable behaviour in their pursuit of you to the Solicitors Regulation Authority
[/QUOTE]