New parking regulations at home...

KeithP

6)iii) they've even got Claimant and Defendant mixed up.

Are you sure they're solicitors?

Daniel_san

haha yes, they have! I think some paperwork may have been included in a packet of Cornflakes at some point in the past.

[Deleted User]

It's a delightful part 20 defence
In fact, I would go so far as to rely on it (in addition to the photos) to demonstrate the original claim is unreasonably advanced.

The solicitors for the claimant/part20 defendant are clearly unwilling or unable to sign a statement of truth stating that the car was parked outside of a marked bay. A DJ may find that interesting....

Fruitcake

I had difficulty reading that as after about ten seconds I kept getting shown "prove you are not a robot" images for some reason.

Since they have used the term, "without prejudice" are they actually going to be able to use that statement in court?

What a load of cobblers. Proof that a VRN is personal data from ICO statements etcetera should of course be provided.

They state they have a contract to mismanage parking then ask you to prove otherwise? Er, no, it's the other way round. They need to show a contract that says they can ticket you and take you to court for parking in your own space.

The comment that your car may not have been parked in your own space is laughable when all their images show otherwise. As above, the images contradict that statement, therefore it is a statement of lies.

nosferatu1001

part 20? A reference I'm missing there Jonhersh!

Given it isnt signed under a statement of truth, does that not mean it is an invalid defence to counterclaim? I htought defences of claims OR counterclaims had to be so signed?

trisontana

What we have here is an illustration of Gladstones well out of their comfort zone. They are OK just issuing robo-claims, but when they have to deal with a proper legal argument they are just rubbish. I should be ashamed to call myself a solicitor writing that nonsense.

[Deleted User]

The defence to the counterclaim is signed and verified with a statement of truth on behalf of the claimant. The lawyers name is redacted. In short: This means the claimant/part 20 defendant (company) has checked and approved a document (prepared by Gladstones on their instructions) which appears to state very clearly that the defendant/part 20 claimant may in fact have been parked in his bay after all.

part 20? A reference I'm missing there

My references were to part 20 CPR, which is the court rules relating to counterclaims.

6)iii) they've even got Claimant and Defendant mixed up.

Strictly speaking, no. They are now both the claimant and a defendant to the counterclaim. Their failure is to make that clear as I have done in this post.

nosferatu1001

Fruitcake - I think the WP means that even if this is provided theyre not accepting that it disproves their point

Theyve stated the tickets were issued for being parked outside of a marked bay, yet they demonstrably werent.
I dont understand how stupid they are being here, or how stupid they believe the D to be...

Guys_Dad

Oh dear.

Thread about a PPC parking ticket now on post #360 and we complain about Parking Eye court packs.

Coupon-mad

Yes but this one is legendary! I regularly signpost people to read this 'residential site' fightback v PPCs.