New parking regulations at home...

Daniel_san

That must be the result of copy / pasting, as it isn't present in the Word document in front of me.

I haven't, and you are right, I should, and I will. Thank you.

nosferatu1001

27.1 - how is this not relevant land?

Personally this is too long, needs to be more concise. Defences over a page for something relatively simple shouldn't run this long.

Umkomaas

Very fast skim read while waiting for Mrs U to vacate the supermarket - there's some flip-flopping between 'the Defendant' and 'I', which I believe not only should be consistent but should be 'the Defendant' rather than anything in the first person.

Daniel_san

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

27.1 - how is this not relevant land?

Personally this is too long, needs to be more concise. Defences over a page for something relatively simple shouldn't run this long.

This is in BOLD on my screen, to remind me to look into it more before including/removing. That section is copy/pasted from Henry Hippo's thread on Pepipoo, as Coupon Mad suggested. I do need to check that and understand if it's correct for me, or remove it. Thank you.

Regarding the length, it's a defence and counterclaim, and I would rather it be long and include everything relevant, than miss something out. If you or anyone has suggestions as to which parts can be removed whilst still retaining the important parts, that would be great, thank you.

Daniel_san

Umkomaas wrote: »

Very fast skim read while waiting for Mrs U to vacate the supermarket - there's some flip-flopping between 'the Defendant' and 'I', which I believe not only should be consistent but should be 'the Defendant' rather than anything in the first person.

100% agreed. I've gone through it and changed those and will double check it again before it's filed. Thank you.

Coupon-mad

That section is copy/pasted from Henry Hippo's thread on Pepipoo, as Coupon Mad suggested. I do need to check that and understand if it's correct for me, or remove it.

You need to adapt it to suit your case, remove any 'not relevant land' argument.

Daniel_san

Quick update. Court has acknowledged my defence and counterclaim and I've paid the fee. I have the directions questionnaire. The case has been moved to my local court. Having read the newbies post, I'm now expecting Gladstones to request the "papers hearing" route.

I'll update at the next stage.

Daniel_san

Update FYI: Received Gladstones defence to counterclaim. Any comments etc appreciated.

Page 1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntcui1c65dq32tw/GLADSTONE-DEFENCE-COUNTERCLAIM-1-redacted.jpg?dl=0

Page 2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ra839wsufp4dqrt/GLADSTONE-DEFENCE-COUNTERCLAIM-2-redacted.jpg?dl=0

Coupon-mad

Usual rubbish. Henry Hippo got the same sort of response. They have to defend a counter claim but IMHO that's very weak indeed.

They've even argued that a VRN is not personal data, despite the fact that the ICO has found as fact that it is.

And this is not a personal injury claim! Consumers can certainly claim for distress under the DPA or the Protection from Harassment Act or the Equality Act or even the Consumer Rights Act and Judges have upheld such claims already in the small claims track.

Daniel_san

Thanks for the reply CM. I read it and thought it was a pile of pish too! Especially coming from a solicitors....just wow!

I particularly liked, I mean laughed, at the bit where they suggested my vehicle was or could have been parked outside of my bay in regards my counterclaim. 1 minute on their clients website for any of those 7 PCN's would reveal their clients photographic "evidence" actually supports my claim by showing clearly my vehicle in my own bay - I've saved the images, of course