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
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jan 18, 9:11 AM
    • 6,747Posts
    • 8,740Thanks
    beamerguy
    GLADSTONES ? - Why are they so incompetent ?
    • #1
    • 12th Jan 18, 9:11 AM
    GLADSTONES ? - Why are they so incompetent ? 12th Jan 18 at 9:11 AM
    GLADSTONES ? - Why are they so incompetent ?

    I was asked this last night ..... I did not really have a good
    answer as to why they are so incompetent

    All I could do is point him to the Parking Pranksters site
    and their woeful approach to running a business plus ....
    they are stars on google for all the wrong reasons

    Certainly on the last prankster report, incompetence
    shines through

    "Their actions amount to no better than stealing from their customers, since they are not providing the least kind of service one would expect from a properly behaved firm of solicitors. They are also essentially stealing from motorists, by attempting to claim money which is not owed by them."

    So, why are Gladstones so incompetent ???
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/link-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
Page 1
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Jan 18, 9:21 AM
    • 7,657 Posts
    • 6,734 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 18, 9:21 AM
    • #2
    • 12th Jan 18, 9:21 AM
    The whole country is becoming incompetent.

    I am at present taking three companies to the Ombudsman, Santander Bank, British Gas, and a Housing Association. HMRC may soon be joining them.

    I blame Charles Babbage.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 12th Jan 18, 10:17 AM
    • 3,954 Posts
    • 5,576 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 18, 10:17 AM
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 18, 10:17 AM
    If you think about it, the incompetence model works, robo claims with no hope of success in court scare enough people into paying up to more than cover expenses, and make a nice profit..
    Sure, it's an abuse of the system, but while the likes of the DVLA, Government etc, lobbied by the BPA ltd sit back, nothing will change.
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • muleskinner
    • By muleskinner 12th Jan 18, 11:04 AM
    • 65 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    muleskinner
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 18, 11:04 AM
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 18, 11:04 AM
    If you think about it, the incompetence model works, robo claims with no hope of success in court scare enough people into paying up to more than cover expenses, and make a nice profit..
    Originally posted by Half_way
    This is sadly the case. It doesn't matter that they're incompetent due to the amount of people that simply either pay up because they're scared or do a quick cost/benefit analysis of the time it's going to spend them preparing a court defence and calculate they'd be better off just stumping up the cash (I get people telling me I should have done this all the time).

    I don't think it'll get better until the courts starting becoming more aggressive in awarding punitive costs for unreasonable behaviour. I can't believe some judges still aren't awarding the basic costs for some of these cases, from the PPCs point of view court action is a complete no-brainer if there's no real risk involved.
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 12th Jan 18, 11:34 AM
    • 3,954 Posts
    • 5,576 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 18, 11:34 AM
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 18, 11:34 AM
    Even when the ppc does not win in court, it can still be used by the ppc in figures, ie last year we took xxx motorists to court over unpaid charges, pay us or we will take you to court as well.


    When sch.4 came into being the BPA ltd, said it would reduce court loading what happened?
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Herzlos
    • By Herzlos 12th Jan 18, 12:13 PM
    • 6,322 Posts
    • 5,688 Thanks
    Herzlos
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 18, 12:13 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 18, 12:13 PM
    I'm not sure it's actual incompetence rather than a lack of desire to do it properly. They make money from the intimidation, not the court process. Thus being incompetent and taking you to court regardless of merit if you don't pay up is a much bigger threat than only being taken to court if they'll win.

    Since the entire business model is dodgy, doing it competently with due diligence means dropping 99+% of claims as without merit.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jan 18, 12:40 PM
    • 6,747 Posts
    • 8,740 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 18, 12:40 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 18, 12:40 PM
    I'm not sure it's actual incompetence rather than a lack of desire to do it properly. They make money from the intimidation, not the court process. Thus being incompetent and taking you to court regardless of merit if you don't pay up is a much bigger threat than only being taken to court if they'll win.

    Since the entire business model is dodgy, doing it competently with due diligence means dropping 99+% of claims as without merit.
    Originally posted by Herzlos
    I refer to the incompetence in court action and when
    they get to court.

    The rest of this prior, is the Gladstones scam operation
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Herzlos
    • By Herzlos 12th Jan 18, 1:52 PM
    • 6,322 Posts
    • 5,688 Thanks
    Herzlos
    • #8
    • 12th Jan 18, 1:52 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Jan 18, 1:52 PM
    I refer to the incompetence in court action and when
    they get to court.
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    That's part of it - they don't want to go to court, and don't want to be accused of malice. So they don't do any preparation work (costs money) and send the cheapest representative they can (less money). Then when they lose they are accused of being incompetent instead of criminal.

    If I was threatening people with baseless claims, the last thing I'd want to admit in court is that I'm well aware of how baseless it is.
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 12th Jan 18, 5:19 PM
    • 853 Posts
    • 643 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 18, 5:19 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 18, 5:19 PM
    They are not incompetent, they are merely being efficient.


    Do a cost/benefit analysis and any sensible business person would applaud their business efficiency [whilst being rightly outraged at their lack of scruples and morals].


    They could probably be doing with tweaking it a little bit....but it's probably not worth the effort from their part.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jan 18, 5:51 PM
    • 6,747 Posts
    • 8,740 Thanks
    beamerguy
    They are not incompetent, they are merely being efficient.


    Do a cost/benefit analysis and any sensible business person would applaud their business efficiency [whilst being rightly outraged at their lack of scruples and morals].


    They could probably be doing with tweaking it a little bit....but it's probably not worth the effort from their part.
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    In court they are highly incompetent, we see that from reports

    In court they are not efficient

    The only business people who would applaud them
    would be fellow scammers
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 15th Jan 18, 9:28 AM
    • 853 Posts
    • 643 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    In court they are highly incompetent, we see that from reports

    In court they are not efficient

    The only business people who would applaud them
    would be fellow scammers
    Originally posted by beamerguy

    You are entirely missing the point I was making.


    They are indeed incompetent and inefficient in court...but only where the case is adequately defended; every other time they walk away winners.


    As regards pre-court, they are collecting the most money for the least possible outlay.


    Bit of guesswork here....


    They make say £150 per case that pays up before court.
    They make say £400 per case that is undefended.
    They lose very little on properly defended cases...say £200??


    I have no idea what percentage of their total cases that are successfully defended but I'd hazard a guess at 2%???? [I'm sure someone could provide a better calculation from court figures]


    So more than 90% of cases result in them getting a payout of £200+ for about £3 worth of printing and postage, and the occasional £25 court costs. That's efficient and highly profitable by anyone's standards.



    Scum yes, inefficient no.
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 15th Jan 18, 10:01 AM
    • 6,747 Posts
    • 8,740 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Computersaysno

    We know all of this and is applicable to all industries
    where a bad defence or even a no show loses the case
    for a consumer.

    That is not being efficient as any old fool and his dog
    can win like this

    The reference is made to what is seen on here, and
    on that basis Gladstones are incompetent and
    will continue to be so
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Computersaysno
    • By Computersaysno 15th Jan 18, 2:19 PM
    • 853 Posts
    • 643 Thanks
    Computersaysno
    They could be more competent, but that would take time and thereby cost them money....so they choose to remain exactly as they are.


    There are definitely areas they could easily improve on...eg by being better at quickly dropping cases that submit a good defence they would reduce their court costs....that's why it's important that we all submit counterclaims to any claim so that they are forced to attend court and defend themselves!!
    Welcome to the world of 'Protect the brand at the cost of free speech'
    • Castle
    • By Castle 15th Jan 18, 2:23 PM
    • 1,381 Posts
    • 1,820 Thanks
    Castle
    There are definitely areas they could easily improve on...eg by being better at quickly dropping cases that submit a good defence they would reduce their court costs....that's why it's important that we all submit counterclaims to any claim so that they are forced to attend court and defend themselves!!
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    That probably applies to CEL cases as well, given the number they discontinue.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 15th Jan 18, 2:34 PM
    • 6,747 Posts
    • 8,740 Thanks
    beamerguy
    They could be more competent, but that would take time and thereby cost them money....so they choose to remain exactly as they are.
    Originally posted by Computersaysno
    Hence they are incompetent
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 15th Jan 18, 3:07 PM
    • 2,648 Posts
    • 3,952 Thanks
    fisherjim
    I think they are second rate and not very good, that's why they major in on Debt collection and parking charges.

    It's easy money for little effort, and so what if they lose some it's not like losing on important cases where real expertise and reputation brings in clients!
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

175Posts Today

1,565Users online

Martin's Twitter