Gladstones Solicitors
Gladstones Solicitors advertise themselves as being specialists in corporate recovery. Working on behalf of Smart Parking Ltd and others, they will send correspondence to try and reclaim such so-called parking charges. Receiving letters from a solicitor may then give the appearance that such parking charges could be heading towards a court hearing. It's all part of the deception, lies and misconception, tantamount to fraud!
Typical letter from Gladstones Solicitors...
Dear MR WON'T BENDOVER
Claimant:Smart Parking Ltd
Vehicle Registration:PI55OFF
Total Amount Outstanding:£160
We have been instructed by Smart Parking Ltd in relation to the above debt.
It is our client’s case that you are liable for these charges and we would like to draw your attention to the options that our client has in order to recover these from you.
The Supreme Court case of Beavis v Parking Eye [2015] recently confirmed the lawfulness of charges based in contract and their recoverability in Civil Law. Prior to this case being decided there had been a common misconception that such charges were unrecoverable. The law is now dear.
Our client now has the option to commence proceedings in the appropriate Civil Court. This right exists for a period of 6 years (the limitation period) from the date of the parking charge although it is our client’s preference to resolve this matter as soon as possible. A claim would result in an increase in the amount sought in terms of any Statutory Costs and Court Fees.
Our client would like to provide you with this opportunity to contact their agent to make full payment in the sum of £160 thereby avoiding the consideration of any future court action and any increase in the amount claimed.
Should you be in difficulty in making full payment then it may be possible for them to agree a payment plan with you.
Please now contact our client’s agent, Debt Recovery Plus Limited, in order to discuss a payment proposal or make payment online at www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pay, or by calling their payment line on 0208 2346775.
If you do not pay within the next 14 days, please keep our client and their agents (DRP) updated as to your current address to ensure that your ability to defend any such action is protected as any County Court Judgment or Decree can have a serious effect on a person’s credit rating. It is therefore important that you are appraised of any future Court action.
In order that you are properly advised we would like to remind you of your ability to seek advice from one of the organisations below should you need to:
National Debtline, Tricorn House, 51-53 Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 8TP, 0808 808 4000 www.nationaldebtline.co.uk; Consumer Credit Counselling Service, 0800 138 1111, www.cccs.co.uk; Citizens Advice, Check your local Yellow Pages or Thomson local directory for address and telephone, www.citizensadvice.org.uk; Community Legal Advice (formerly Community Legal Services Direct), 0845 345 4345, www.clsdirect.org.uk.
Please do not make proposals to Gladstones Solicitors as they may not be considered.
Yours sincerely,
Gladstones Solicitors Limited
You wouldn't normally expect solicitors to be less than honest, as they are supposed to be lawful and acting lawfully. However, it seems, this is not always the case. The above letter from Gladstones Solicitors is full of incinuation and misleading information, acting in cahoots with both Smart Parking and Debt Recovery Plus, they perpetuate the fraud designed to get you to think that you should pay or you'll end up in court.
Fraud No 1
"It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges"
Ok, but there is no case! I don't agree to their terms and conditions and don't agree to entering into a contract with them. Therefore, I cannot be liable to any charges relating to any terms and conditions, or charges relating to any contract. This was pointed this out in the first notice sent to them, which they have chosen to ignore.
Fraud No 2
"Beavis v Parking Eye [2015] recently confirmed the lawfulness of charges based in contract and their recoverability."
The Beavis case was not about disputing the entering of a contract, it was contesting the rather extortionate charge presented for overstaying. Barry Beavis, a chip shop owner from Essex, claimed an £85 charge for breaching a two-hour limit was "unfair and disproportionate". Notably it was ultimately ruled against by some very well off Supreme Court judges who, on their salaries probably thought the amount he was being charged was small change.
Fraud No 3
"The law is now clear"
Although quoted by all of these dodgy and deceitful companies as a 'landmark ruling' it is not. The Barry Beavis case was specifically about the amount of the charge for overstaying. It does not relate to non-agreement of terms and conditions or to not agreeing to enter into a contract with these dubious operators. This hearing, therefore, does not apply across the board and does not set a precedent, regardless of what these dubious companies try and make out. This is just another misleading and fraudulent ploy on their part.
Fraud No 4
"Our client now has the option to commence proceedings in the appropriate Civil Court."
This would be a waste of their time and money. This is because there was no agreement to any contract with the company or to their terms and conditions. They cannot make or assume that you agree to something you do not agree to.
Fraud No 5
"If you do not pay within the next 14 days, please keep our client and their agents (DRP) updated as to your current address to ensure that your ability to defend any such action is protected as any County Court Judgment or Decree can have a serious effect on a person’s credit rating."
Continuing the scam to try and give you the impression that this case will go to court. Let us not forget that the original demand for money from Smart Parking Ltd used the phrase 'alleged breach of terms and conditions'. This is because nothing is actually proven. Neither has anything been agreed or admitted to. There is no actual proof as to who was driving and no actual proof that the said vehicle wasn't a cloned vehicle even. Besides, I do not agree to their terms and conditions, or that we have contract. WE DO NOT!