Motorists 2 - PPCs 0

Make that 4-0. Someone sent me this today (in their own words, I wasn't directly involved):

Claim Number D6GF6K5E (Link Parking vs Mr M).

Summary; Gladstones Solicitors sent evidence late, witness statement late, their witness wasn't present in court, they couldn't prove the permit was a photocopy, case dismissed.

Mr M had been ticketed for parking in a visitors bay within a residential complex he owns a property at, the claimant alleged that he displayed a "photocopied" visitors permit.

As per usual, and as I've become used to seeing, Gladstones Solicitors issued the usual nonsense roboclaim that did not set out any cause of action, far from professional for a regulated solicitor.

Upon drafting a defence and submitting it, Mr M received the usual proforma nonsense from Gladstones Solicitors, however we proceeded ahead.

The case was allocated to the Cheltenham County Court, District Judge Singleton gave one of the most concise and strict set of directions for all parties, including for Gladstones Solicitors to file a response to the defence, in which they submitted late, parties were asked to submit evidence by set dates, in which Mr M ensured was sent out on time, of course Gladstones Solicitors filed their evidence late, and even filed their witness statement late, and their Witness Statement was from the director of Link Parking.

The hearing was due at 14:00 on the 9th January 2018, a solicitor appeared on behalf of the Claimant, in the hearing, District Judge Singleton essentially said everything that was needed to be said and was not impressed with Gladstones' conduct, wasn't happy that the witness was not present in court, and the main point being that the claimant couldn't prove that a photocopy permit was used.

Case dismissed.

It amazes me from having supported quite a few members on the forums with court claims, that Gladstones Solicitors still systematically behave in a way that is deliberately deceitful, unprofessional and is simply not the conduct you'd expect from a professional company.

They have no regard to the court system, and merely use it in the hope that they'll get a default judgment or the defendant simply pays up.

Link Parking, you've been Gladstoned.

The_Deep wrote: »

I Hope CPR27.14(2)(g)costs were aksed for

I knew you'd ask that question.

I have no idea what the costs order was, all I was sent was the information which I posted on the thread.

But no doubt if you get in front of a Judge some day, you will be setting the gold standard for unreasonable behaviour costs.