Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 11th Oct 17, 3:27 PM
    • 2,170Posts
    • 6,254Thanks
    bargepole
    Court Report - Staines - Another Gladstones Disaster
    • #1
    • 11th Oct 17, 3:27 PM
    Court Report - Staines - Another Gladstones Disaster 11th Oct 17 at 3:27 PM
    D9GF12E4 – Private Parking Solutions London Ltd -v- Mr H, before District Judge Trigg.

    Claimant represented by Mr Offord (agent) and Mr Gazewski (Director of PPS). Defendant represented by Stuart Wolf as Lay Rep.

    I had been invited along to observe this hearing by the Ashford Parking Group, who are having ongoing battles with this particular PPC at a car park in Ashford (Middx) town centre.

    The Claimant’s WS was the usual template rubbish, including citing Elliott v Loake even though the Defendant had confirmed from day one that he was the driver.

    But more seriously, much of their evidence appeared to be forged, or fraudulent. This included:

    - A ‘contract’ purporting to be with the leaseholder which had pages and annotations added to it which weren’t there in previous cases
    - An ariel photograph purporting to have been taken in 2015, which was identical to one taken in 2017, with all the same vehicles in the same positions
    - An assertion that the landowner was one particular company, when in fact it was proven that another company had bought the original company out, and sent a letter stating that PPS did not have any authority to issue and pursue parking charges
    - A photo purporting to show the Defendant’s vehicle in the part of the car park patrolled by PPS, when in fact it was in a different area patrolled by Horizon

    When we went in to court, DJ Trigg picked up on the fact that the Directions had stated that statements and evidence must be filed by 12 September. The Claimant’s WS, sent by Gladstones, was dated 18 Sept., and received by the Court and Defendant on 21 Sept. This, she said, was a serious and significant failure of protocol, and invited the Claimants to step outside to consider whether they could offer any excuse for this.

    After some frantic phone calls (presumably to Gladstones), the best they could come up with was that it needed to be proof read, and amendments made. The Judge was not satisfied with this, observing that the Directions Letter had been sent in July, and they had had ample time to comply with the timescale.

    As there was no good reason for late service, the WS would be struck out. This meant that the Claimant had no evidence, and the claim was dismissed.

    Mr H is retired, so no loss of earnings costs were applicable, but Mr Wolf did ask for further costs in light of the unreasonable behaviour of the Claimant. The Judge declined to award any, saying that the Claimant had already been sanctioned by the striking out of their evidence, and she wasn’t going to penalise them twice.

    This is now the 15th case to reach court from this particular location, all of which have been dismissed for various reasons.
    Last edited by bargepole; 11-10-2017 at 5:06 PM.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 30. Lost 9.
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Oct 17, 3:53 PM
    • 6,480 Posts
    • 8,312 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 11th Oct 17, 3:53 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Oct 17, 3:53 PM
    Gladstones "gladstoned" themselves

    Why on earth do parking companies use Gladstones ????
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Megsnan
    • By Megsnan 11th Oct 17, 4:11 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    Megsnan
    • #3
    • 11th Oct 17, 4:11 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Oct 17, 4:11 PM
    This is not the whole story, Popla are now ignoring the fact that PPS had no legal right to be operating on this land, so there will be at least 26 more court cases!!!! There must be a mechanism to set off alarm bells that courts are being abused by this and other parking companies? The BPA are no longer scrutinised, Popla isn't so this needs to be addressed by the courts!! A scandalous waste of Court time and taxpayers money!
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Oct 17, 6:09 PM
    • 7,431 Posts
    • 6,480 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 11th Oct 17, 6:09 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Oct 17, 6:09 PM
    The Judge declined to award any, saying that the Claimant had already been sanctioned by the striking out of their evidence, and she wasn’t going to penalise them twice.

    She would not be penalising them, she would be compensating the appellant for wasting his time, and perhaps for stress.

    If this is reasonable behaviour I am a Law Graduate.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 11th Oct 17, 6:35 PM
    • 2,170 Posts
    • 6,254 Thanks
    bargepole
    • #5
    • 11th Oct 17, 6:35 PM
    • #5
    • 11th Oct 17, 6:35 PM
    The Judge declined to award any, saying that the Claimant had already been sanctioned by the striking out of their evidence, and she wasn’t going to penalise them twice.

    She would not be penalising them, she would be compensating the appellant for wasting his time, and perhaps for stress.

    If this is reasonable behaviour I am a Law Graduate.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    I knew it wouldn't take you long to jump on this thread, Mr D.

    I think what we should do, is the next time we have a case at Reading County Court, we'll send you all the paperwork, and you can go along as the Defendant's Lay Rep.

    Then you can report back on here, and show us how much you got the Judge to award the Defendant for unreasonable behaviour costs.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 30. Lost 9.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Oct 17, 7:06 PM
    • 7,431 Posts
    • 6,480 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 11th Oct 17, 7:06 PM
    • #6
    • 11th Oct 17, 7:06 PM
    Glad to Mr C.

    If I am I not at my residence in Spain.

    If I am not in too much pain, (dodgy hip doncha know),

    If I am not refurbishing one of my properties,

    or in Switzerland visiting my money.

    I am no stranger to Reading CC, having won two cases there, (rent arrears and RTA). I have also written a few hundred witness statements for Immigration Courts.
    Last edited by The Deep; 11-10-2017 at 7:10 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 11th Oct 17, 8:34 PM
    • 1,201 Posts
    • 2,387 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #7
    • 11th Oct 17, 8:34 PM
    • #7
    • 11th Oct 17, 8:34 PM
    Shame it was dismissed before it got started, would have loved to hear what the judge thought about all the lies in their ws/ evidence... And whether it would have led to them being reported to the CPS for contempt of court and/or perverting the course of justice.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Oct 17, 11:08 PM
    • 6,480 Posts
    • 8,312 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #8
    • 11th Oct 17, 11:08 PM
    • #8
    • 11th Oct 17, 11:08 PM
    Shame it was dismissed before it got started, would have loved to hear what the judge thought about all the lies in their ws/ evidence... And whether it would have led to them being reported to the CPS for contempt of court and/or perverting the course of justice.
    Originally posted by Lamilad
    We have to be patient ...... with the Gladstones woeful business
    model, it is only a matter of time
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Oct 17, 7:35 AM
    • 7,431 Posts
    • 6,480 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:35 AM
    • #9
    • 12th Oct 17, 7:35 AM
    Surely a criminal offence was committed in submitting false/forged evidence, the contract and the aerial photograph. Why did the judge not throw the book at Gladstones?

    That, coupled with the failure to award costs leads me to think that she is incompetent.

    If I had been the appellant I would be strenuously seeking her dismissal.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • esmerobbo
    • By esmerobbo 12th Oct 17, 7:47 AM
    • 4,681 Posts
    • 6,161 Thanks
    esmerobbo
    Surely a criminal offence was committed in submitting false/forged evidence .
    Originally posted by The Deep
    It wasn't submitted as such as it wasn't allowed to be entered by the judge.

    You are of course correct it should be looked at.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Oct 17, 7:55 AM
    • 7,431 Posts
    • 6,480 Thanks
    The Deep
    Could the judge have allowed it, (the PPC wanted the judge to see it)?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • phillw
    • By phillw 12th Oct 17, 8:11 AM
    • 1,041 Posts
    • 622 Thanks
    phillw
    The court probably didn't want the hassle. You could make a complaint to the police.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 12th Oct 17, 8:31 AM
    • 3,878 Posts
    • 5,465 Thanks
    Half_way
    If there's no landowner authority, then isn't it a clear batch of the data protection act, as the parking company had no just cause to access, retain and processes data of registered keepers from the dvla?
    certainly worth a full complaint to the DVLA, as well as looking into the possibility of action against the PPC/gladstones and even the dvla for a DPA breach
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 12th Oct 17, 8:41 AM
    • 1,201 Posts
    • 2,387 Thanks
    Lamilad
    certainly worth a full complaint to the DVLA
    Agree I think if proof of the forged evidence was sent to the DVLA and BPA with the local MP, SRA, ICO and (probably) trading standards copied in then something would have to be done.

    I'd also be letting the local newspaper and that guy at the Daily Mail aware for added emphasis.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 12th Oct 17, 10:11 AM
    • 2,170 Posts
    • 6,254 Thanks
    bargepole
    Surely a criminal offence was committed in submitting false/forged evidence, the contract and the aerial photograph. Why did the judge not throw the book at Gladstones?

    That, coupled with the failure to award costs leads me to think that she is incompetent.

    If I had been the appellant I would be strenuously seeking her dismissal.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    You claim to know a lot about law, then demonstrate that you clearly don't, with posts like this.

    There is no 'appellant', this wasn't an appeal hearing, it was a first instance case with a Claimant v a Defendant.

    Secondly, a District Judge in a County Court does not have jurisdiction to make rulings on, or sanctions for, criminal offences. If evidence is found to be false, the Judge may make a finding of Contempt of Court.

    Thirdly, she stated at the outset that she hadn't read the Claimant's WS, due to the late filing. The claim was dismissed on procedural grounds, and none of the substantive issues were considered, or ruled upon. Your suggestion of incompetence is, therefore, completely misinformed.

    Fourthly, the WS was signed by the Director of PPS (although most of the wording was from a Gladstones template), so Gladstones weren't a party to the case, and could only have been sanctioned by a non-party costs order (CPR 46), but as no order for costs was made, this didn't apply.

    I suggest you might want to bone up on legal terminology, court procedures, and the Civil Procedure Rules before posting misleading and inaccurate sweeping assertions on this board.

    Or just pop off to Zurich to count your gold bars ...
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 30. Lost 9.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Oct 17, 10:57 AM
    • 7,431 Posts
    • 6,480 Thanks
    The Deep
    You claim to know a lot about law,

    Not really, I spent five years in the FO Legal Department helping to draft Double Taxation Agreements, Air Services Agreements, Law of the Sea, Space, Antarctic etc. None of the really sexy stuff like parking fines.

    Thank you for correcting me on the minutiae of the various terminologies, but I dispute your use of the word "assertions", most of my posts ask questions or are opinions, just as was the one to which you seem to have taken exception. I give very little direct advice.
    Last edited by The Deep; 12-10-2017 at 11:37 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

881Posts Today

5,675Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @bearface83: @MartinSLewis check out the @Missguided new 60% off offer. Upping the cost of items almost double to make us think it?s a?

  • RT @efitzpat: Thank you SO SO much @MartinSLewis for your Student Loans refund advice! I just got a grand refunded right before Xmas! Whoop?

  • Have a lovely weekend folks. Don't do anything (fiscally) that I wouldn't do!

  • Follow Martin