Show Posts - phlegmborough2

Apologies, I mean to their general data email at DataProtectionOfficer@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk, with the email, and the case number in the subject. "To the Data Protection Officer,I am issuing this notice to require the immediate rectification and erasure of my personal data in line with Article 16 and Article 17 of the UK GDPR.Please amend your records to reflect my current address for service:[Address Redacted]I further require that you erase all records containing my previous address from your system and databases.Additionally, you must notify any third parties to whom my personal data has been shared, including debt collection agencies, legal representatives, or other associated entities, instructing them to update my address and erase any reference to my previous address.You are required to confirm in writing within one week that this rectification and erasure have been completed, including the names of all third parties notified."Upon checking, I did not receive any email confirmation to acknowledge that my address has been updated though.

HiYes, I wrote to their data protection email in Jan to inform them. As far as I'm concerned, no letters were sent to my previous addresses. I don't even know when this claim was submitted!

Hi everyone,I've received another reply from Gladstones:"Judgment was obtained electronically via Money Claims Online, therefore there is not a physical copy of the Judgment. Should payment not be forthcoming by no later than 10th April 2026, the matter may be passed to an enforcement team to further recover the debt owing"I am confused - my other parking notice involved steps such as mediation, and an actual date for a court date etc.

Quote from: phlegmborough2 on 20 Jan, 2025 11:28Thank you so much!!!!!Fingers crossed!Quote from: b789 on 20 Jan, 2025 10:04You can only submit basic text in response to the operators evidence pack. So, I suggest you copy and past the following into the POPLA response webform as your response:QuoteAppellant’s Response to Operator’s EvidenceThe operator has failed to adequately rebut the key points raised in my original appeal regarding unclear signage and the ambiguity over who the contractual party is in this matter.1. Signage Confusion and AmbiguityThe operator has failed to address the fundamental issue of conflicting signage. The prominent signage at the car park entrance states, "Car Park Solution provided by Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions." This explicitly indicates that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions (BWPS) manages the site. In contrast, the tiny, less prominent yellow signage mentions Minster Baywatch. These conflicting signs create significant ambiguity about which party is responsible for the operation of the car park.It is critical to note that Bransby Wilson Parking Solutions and Minster Baywatch are two entirely separate legal entities, each registered at Companies House under distinct company registration numbers. This is an indisputable fact. The operator has not provided any evidence to explain or clarify this dual involvement. No reasonable driver could be expected to identify Minster Baywatch as the contracting party when Bransby Wilson’s name is most prominently displayed on the signage.As a result, any alleged contract with Minster Baywatch is unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA 2015), Section 69, which requires ambiguous terms to be interpreted in favour of the consumer.2. Conflict in Submitted DocumentsThe operator has included two separate documents in their evidence pack: the "order form" and the "confirmation of authority." The "order form," which contains the substantive contractual elements, is signed exclusively by Bransby Wilson. Minster Baywatch is mentioned only in the secondary "confirmation of authority," which does not establish them as the contractual party forming agreements with drivers at the site.Given that Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are separate legal entities, it is wholly unclear who is responsible for enforcement, signage, or the management of this car park. This unresolved ambiguity invalidates the alleged contract with Minster Baywatch.3. Failure to Address CRA 2015, Section 69The operator has completely failed to address my argument that ambiguous terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer under CRA 2015, Section 69. The conflicting signage and the unclear roles of Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch create a situation where a reasonable driver cannot identify the party with whom they are allegedly contracting. The operator’s failure to respond to this point further reinforces my position that the alleged contract is void.4. Failure to Prove Payment ObligationThe operator has failed to provide evidence that a valid contract existed between the driver and Minster Baywatch. Without clear signage identifying Minster Baywatch as the operator, there is no legal basis to demand payment. Furthermore, the operator’s reliance on ANPR and payment logs does not override the fundamental requirement for clear, unambiguous contractual terms.5. ANPR and Payment RecordsThe operator’s evidence focuses on the ANPR log and payment records but fails to acknowledge that I have already highlighted the confusion regarding the registration entry. The payment made for a similar registration demonstrates no intent to evade payment. This further undermines the rationale for issuing the Parking Charge Notice and highlights the lack of any financial loss suffered by the operator.ConclusionThe operator has failed to rebut the critical points of my appeal:• The conflicting signage does not establish Minster Baywatch as the contractual party.• Bransby Wilson and Minster Baywatch are entirely separate legal entities, each with a distinct company registration number. The operator has not explained how Minster Baywatch has authority to issue parking charges when Bransby Wilson is the party responsible under the contract.• The Consumer Rights Act 2015 invalidates the alleged contract due to ambiguity.For these reasons, I request that POPLA uphold my appeal.Hi everyone,It's been a year and some! I've received this email "Good afternoon,Thank you for your correspondence dated 11th January 2026 (note: correspondence referring to updating them of our new address)We note that a Judgment has now been issued against you to the sum of £271.96 and we now invite you to make payment in order to conclude the matter.Please make payment to the bank account details below:  Gladstones Solicitors Ltd    Barclays Bank          Account Number: Sort Code: Reference: Should payment not be forthcoming by no later than 10th April 2026, the matter may be passed to an enforcement team to further recover the debt owing"Does it mean they went to court without our knowledge? I emailed them to inform them of our change of address but as far as I'm concerned, we did not receive anything in the snail mail.thanks so much!

Quote from: b789 on 20 Aug, 2025 13:59Please post a copy of the N279 Notice of Discontinuance.Here it is: https://imgur.com/a/PpBDkDl

Hi,Just a quick update: DCB Legal has discontinued the proceedings! This comes a month after the mediation, and after numerous unanswered calls from DCB Legal. Thanks so much @b789 and @DWMB2 for all the help!!!

Hi everyone,In a surprising turn of events, Horizon Parking actually cancelled the PCN! https://imgur.com/a/vOx6zPMWhat happened was that I appealed, saying it was an honest mistake and that I'm a super regular customer at that Tesco (got nothing much to lose since the pofa reason didn't work). They replied asking for evidence of my stay that day, and I supplied them with two months' worth of Tesco Club card transactions. Phew!One PCN down, 3 more to go....

I guess they have too many folks asking them about getting their pcn cancelled  I have one more day before my appeal window ends, any advice on what I can use in the appeal? Thank you!!

They asked and they just said well unless you've spent like 200 quid at Tesco's that day then there's nothing they can do 

Hi, this is the signage at Tesco. https://imgur.com/a/NVxSqlXIt's a fairly large carpark and there are several such signs around it.

I will head to Tesco later for the latest image!Admittedly, with 3 PCNs on our plate now, it was tempting to cave in and just pay up for the fourth one! But no, we will fight this!

Hi!It is a fairly large carpark, but here are some of the signs: https://imgur.com/a/gA0gTwtThey've pasted over the hours of some of the hours, but I am unsure what was the previous time allocated for parking.Can I use this as an excuse, which I'm sure will be rejected, then move my way onto small claims where there's a high probability of it getting cancelled?To be fair, it was an oversight on our part. We were prepared to pay the 40quid but we were on holiday and when we finally opened the letter, it was past the discounted penalty. Thanks so much!

Unfortunately Tesco said it is out of their hands....To be fair, it was an honest mistake that the car exceeded the stay period. However, we still wish to appeal it!Apart from pofa, which doesn't apply for this case, on what other grounds can this be appealed?Thank you!

Yes, I thought I've seen several Tesco/Horizon PCNs being won as they were not Pofa-compliant. Alas! I'm out of luck then.The Tesco where the PCN took place is Driffield, George Street.I'm actually a regular at this Tesco, and know many of the staff there. Any chance I could get them to persuade their manager to write it off? Or am I better off with reasons such as poor signage etc? Thank you!

Only our fourth parking charge in 1.5 years  You'd think we'd be pro at this by now...Is this PoFA compliant? Apologies for the crumpled state of the paper, we have a naughty preschooler in the house...Thanks so much in advance! Image here: https://imgur.com/a/l82OAGp