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
    • trisontana
    • By trisontana 9th Jan 18, 11:07 AM
    • 8,950Posts
    • 13,705Thanks
    trisontana
    Motorists 2 - PPCs 0
    • #1
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:07 AM
    Motorists 2 - PPCs 0 9th Jan 18 at 11:07 AM
    Two threads have popped up on PePiPoo showing substantial wins by motorists against claims by PPCs. :-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117947

    Note the very dodgy "parking agreement" and the remarks from the judge about parking cases "clogging up the courts"

    and this:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117865

    where the motorist was awarded £400+ in costs.
    What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
Page 1
    • Castle
    • By Castle 9th Jan 18, 11:26 AM
    • 1,385 Posts
    • 1,828 Thanks
    Castle
    • #2
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:26 AM
    • #2
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:26 AM
    I must go and read Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006!https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 9th Jan 18, 11:41 AM
    • 1,958 Posts
    • 3,452 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #3
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:41 AM
    • #3
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:41 AM
    2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
    (a)by two authorised signatories, or
    (b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.
    That was a good catch by the judge. Many contracts are only "signed" by a squiggle and no identifying name. It's almost as if they have been presenting fraudulent documents to the court in the hope the judge doesn't pick it up.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 9th Jan 18, 11:47 AM
    • 1,385 Posts
    • 1,828 Thanks
    Castle
    • #4
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:47 AM
    • #4
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:47 AM
    Score update... it's now Motorists 3 - PPC'S 0:-
    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103550&st=40&start=40
    • Castle
    • By Castle 9th Jan 18, 11:48 AM
    • 1,385 Posts
    • 1,828 Thanks
    Castle
    • #5
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:48 AM
    • #5
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:48 AM
    That was a good catch by the judge. Many contracts are only "signed" by a squiggle and no identifying name. It's almost as if they have been presenting fraudulent documents to the court in the hope the judge doesn't pick it up.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    And to the DVLA as well!!
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 9th Jan 18, 11:59 AM
    • 6,751 Posts
    • 8,746 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #6
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:59 AM
    • #6
    • 9th Jan 18, 11:59 AM
    Two threads have popped up on PePiPoo showing substantial wins by motorists against claims by PPCs. :-

    http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117947

    Note the very dodgy "parking agreement" and the remarks from the judge about parking cases "clogging up the courts"

    and this:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117865

    where the motorist was awarded £400+ in costs.
    Originally posted by trisontana
    Great read ..... The famous Gladstones incompetence
    strikes again
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 9th Jan 18, 12:11 PM
    • 65 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    muleskinner
    • #7
    • 9th Jan 18, 12:11 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Jan 18, 12:11 PM
    Nice one!

    The judge in that first case seems particularly 'on it'.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Jan 18, 12:24 PM
    • 7,669 Posts
    • 6,741 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #8
    • 9th Jan 18, 12:24 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Jan 18, 12:24 PM
    The District Judge mentioned that she thought my witness statement was overly long.

    Seems rather unfair, even if it was 40 pages. I assume that Mr Jones is nor legally trained and wished to cover every angle. .

    This case reeks of unreasonable behaviour. Is it not unreasonable in a small claims court, which involves a small sum, for a claimant to spend hundreds of pounds engaging a barrister? Also, is not lying to the court unreasonable? What about not paying a court fee, a witness not turning up, and the claimant not notifying the court that it would rely on a witness.

    Did not the judge have a duty of care to examine this? Dis not the judge have a duty of care towards Mrs Jines Should not a claim against her for negligence/ Is is not tome for motirists to go on the offensive about this abuse of court processes?

    WRT Mrs Pie, her husband deserves a medal. If only everyone had the cojones to go head to head with these bottom feeding solicitors.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 9th Jan 18, 12:36 PM
    • 6,751 Posts
    • 8,746 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #9
    • 9th Jan 18, 12:36 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Jan 18, 12:36 PM
    TD, I agree with you regarding the judge saying
    the statement was too long.

    However, don't you get the impression that once
    a judge sees it is the incompetent Gladstones,
    probably two words would be too long ?
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 9th Jan 18, 1:13 PM
    • 7,669 Posts
    • 6,741 Thanks
    The Deep
    I do not know how well infirmed judges are, I doubt that most of the would do well on the general knowledge part of mastermind
    Last edited by The Deep; 09-01-2018 at 1:15 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Jan 18, 2:29 PM
    • 16,381 Posts
    • 25,478 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The District Judge mentioned that she thought my witness statement was overly long.

    Seems rather unfair, even if it was 40 pages. I assume that Mr Jones is nor legally trained and wished to cover every angle. .
    You’re out by 20 pages, plus a number of exhibits TD!

    He goes on to raise a number of points and filed a 60-page witness statement with a number of exhibits, most of which I consider to be on irrelevant points
    I must go and read Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006!https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44
    Looks a very interesting avenue and one to be exploited, not only in court cases, but also at POPLA where Assessors are increasingly accepting template witness statements signed with a scrawl in lieu of contemporaneous and unredacted contracts.

    10 So, on that basis, I think that the entire scheme is invalid and there is no right at the present time for Parking and Property Management to issue parking tickets or to operate a scheme in this estate.
    Given the requirement for 2 signatures was not met, the judge deemed the ‘entire scheme is invalid and there is no right at the present time for xxx to issue parking tickets or to operate a scheme’. I’ve never seen a PPC contract with a landowner that meets this requirement - which surely potentially puts the skids under everything?
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 09-01-2018 at 2:36 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 9th Jan 18, 7:24 PM
    • 2,195 Posts
    • 6,352 Thanks
    bargepole
    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.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 31. Lost 9.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 10th Jan 18, 12:38 PM
    • 1,385 Posts
    • 1,828 Thanks
    Castle
    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).
    Originally posted by bargepole
    Now reported on the Prankster's site; a poster, (Panglos), has commented that Link Parking lost two further cases on 8th January in Bristol CC.

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/link-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 10th Jan 18, 1:30 PM
    • 6,751 Posts
    • 8,746 Thanks
    beamerguy
    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.
    Originally posted by bargepole
    The incompetent Gladstones cannot be classed
    as professionals. One must assume that the SRA
    prides itself on being professional but drag
    themselves in the gutter by supporting this delinquent
    firm

    " failing in one's duty, negligent, negectful, remiss
    careless, irrresponsible"


    It sums up this wild bunch
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 10th Jan 18, 1:35 PM
    • 8,125 Posts
    • 8,517 Thanks
    pappa golf
    The incompetent Gladstones cannot be classed
    as professionals. One must assume that the SRA
    prides itself on being professional but drag
    themselves in the gutter by supporting this delinquent
    firm

    " failing in one's duty, negligent, negectful, remiss
    careless, irrresponsible"


    It sums up this wild bunch
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    it took 5 yrs + to bring down Mr swartz (sp) , times will change , massive chances afoot by goverment , the likes of gladstones (monopolies or us) will be long gone , those two will be like others that "bailed" out (whitehouse) and live the lives of luxury swanning about the Mediterranean
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 10th Jan 18, 2:09 PM
    • 1,958 Posts
    • 3,452 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    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.
    It's all the client's fault as Gladstones are upstanding officers of the court.

    Practice Direction 22

    Where a party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth on his behalf. The statement signed by the legal representative will refer to the client's belief, not his own.
    So anything amiss in there is down to Link.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Jan 18, 3:17 PM
    • 7,669 Posts
    • 6,741 Thanks
    The Deep
    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). ...


    clipped

    ... 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.
    Originally posted by bargepole


    I Hope CPR27.14(2)(g)costs were aksed for
    Last edited by The Deep; 10-01-2018 at 3:24 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 10th Jan 18, 5:12 PM
    • 2,195 Posts
    • 6,352 Thanks
    bargepole
    I Hope CPR27.14(2)(g)costs were aksed for
    Originally posted by The Deep
    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.
    Speeding cases fought: 24 (3 of mine, 21 for others). Cases won: 20. Points on licence: 0. Private Parking Court Cases: Won 31. Lost 9.
    • Kirchenmaus
    • By Kirchenmaus 20th Jan 18, 7:52 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 27 Thanks
    Kirchenmaus
    Given the requirement for 2 signatures was not met, the judge deemed the Ďentire scheme is invalid and there is no right at the present time for xxx to issue parking tickets or to operate a schemeí. Iíve never seen a PPC contract with a landowner that meets this requirement - which surely potentially puts the skids under everything?
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Which really ought to have set your antennae a-twitching... Because not only would such a requirement blow all PPC contracts out of the water, it would blow all other company contracts out of the water, too. Section 44 of the Companies Act simply does not apply to a "company contract", such as a PPC authorisation contract, so the lack of two signatures (at least one by a director) was irrelevant.

    --Kirchenmaus
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th Jan 18, 8:12 PM
    • 52,913 Posts
    • 66,449 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes but parking firms are (in the main) not very bright and we have a Judge saying this, and we can refer to it, making stupid litigious companies have to jump through even more hoops.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

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

5,594Posts Today

5,223Users online

Martin's Twitter