ES Spinningfields Manchester County Court Papers

Keezy

thank you Coupon,


Ah so I can just print off the blogs and make a few bullet points how they relate to my case. I will email GS the added parts and go to court and submit them tomorrow.

h ttp://imgur.com/a/PI0rt

Here are a couple of the original letters, they seem to word it differently but touch on the aspects required in the schedule. The bottom para of the first letter relates to 9(2)f but not specifying the 28 days.

But yes, the relevant obligation/contract and adequate notice are both clearly lacking in the signage, as shown in the recent cases.

Thanks again coupon, this would all be very difficult without people like you

Fruitcake

http://imgur.com/a/PI0rt

System

I even went to the court and asked if the claimant had paid the court fees, they said they hadn't but have been given a final 7 day notice.

Check that again and draw the Court's attention to CPR 3.7(4)
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03#3.7.

(4) If the claimant does not –
(a) pay the fee; or
(b) make an application for full or part remission of the fee,
by the date specified in the notice –
(i) the claim will automatically be struck out without further order of the court; and
(ii) the claimant will be liable for the costs which the defendant has incurred unless the court orders otherwise.
(Rule 44.9 provides for the basis of assessment where a right to costs arises under this rule and contains provisions about when a costs order is deemed to have been made and applying for an order under section 194(3) of the Legal Services Act 20071)

You might want to bung in a claim for costs if they haven't paid.

Keezy

Thanks Emanresu

Yeah I'll go to check tomorrow, definitely worth a try, I asked them at the time why it hasn't been struck out and she said that they're always a bit lenient with payments

Keezy

Here is a link to most of the defence I got sent from GS

http://imgur.com/a/xShh8

If anyone has got time to read it, any thoughts or advice would be appreciated

System

Standard Gladstones Roboclaim. ES fails on the signs and the fact the signs are forbidding. They don't offer parking at all.

For their signs to work they would have to allow some parking but they don't as it's not what they are there for.

Similar argument to clamping. They supposedly clamped to ensure there was a traffic flow. Traffic couldn't flow because they had clamped the car.

Not too bright this lot.

twhitehousescat

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Standard Gladstones Roboclaim. ES fails on the signs and the fact the signs are forbidding. They don't offer parking at all.

For their signs to work they would have to allow some parking but they don't as it's not what they are there for.

Similar argument to clamping. They supposedly clamped to ensure there was a traffic flow. Traffic couldn't flow because they had clamped the car.

Not too bright this lot.

NO , ESs backer (trev) used to clamp

Coupon-mad

Keezy wrote: »

Here is a link to most of the defence I got sent from GS

http://imgur.com/a/xShh8

If anyone has got time to read it, any thoughts or advice would be appreciated

Did they include a full copy (front & back) of the NTK you showed us earlier? The NTK doesn't have the 9(2)f wording but alludes to keeper liability so I am concerned it might be on the back. It woud be a wanring about the keeper being liable after the period of 28 days (or 29 depending on how they word it but it needs to be 'from the day after service of this Notice' and PPCs often miss that).

But if the claimant didn't produce a full copy in evidence showing that 9(2)f wording, then of course the Defendant needs to point that out in the skeleton argument, as well as:

- prohibitive signs, absolutely not capable of creating an agreed contract
(append the PCM v Bull case transcript from the Prankster's case law page)

- include a copy of the Beavis case sign, arguing this one created a contract, whereas the Spinningfields one forbids parking:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

- rebut Elliott v Loake, they've mentioned it, you rebut it (see Prankster's blogs about that). You need to make it clear that a keeper cannot be assumed to be the driver, you could append as evidence for this rebuttal:

(a)Henry Greenslade's words 'Understanding Keeper liability' taken from the 2015 POPLA Annual Report, and

(b)Maybe file a copy of the insurance for that car, if it helps the keeper's case, if more than one driver is named. I'm assuming the driver hasn't been identified and will not be.

- Schedule 4 needs appending as evidence with 9(2)f highlighted plus check the NTK was served (received) within 14 days.

- Prankster's Blogs on the Spinningfields scam.

- Your draft costs schedule.

File all of the above attached to a skeleton argument based on your defence but explaining how each evidence item supports the defence - and explaining that Gladstones have effectively re-pleaded the entire case in the WS and you wish to question Mr Hargreaves about his WS...

Keezy

Hi Coupon,

Yes they included both letters they sent to me in their WS, sorry I didn't want to include them as it was a lot of editing out personal details.

The only wording in the NTK in reference to 9(2)f is as shown in that bottom paragraph of the first letter, I checked the back, it only has instructions on payments and appeals etc. so seems as though they haven't correctly established the warning in the NTK.


I will definitely look into Elliot vs Loake and check for my insurance papers.
I appreciate the Sign link, that would have taken me a while!

Do you think the court will mind submitting more defence a couple of days before the court date ?

Forgive me but what do you mean by draft costs schedule and that Gladstones have effectively re-pleaded the entire case ? I would love to mention that and question Mr Hargreaves haha just need to fully understand before I do.

Thanks Coupon, your time and advice is seriously appreciated

Coupon-mad

You are not submitting more defence, this is your skeleton argument based on your initial defence.

Have a read of Britton's thread and KimmyHrunt's thread who are both at EXACTLY your stage and where I have shown them what I mean by a costs schedule and a last minute skeleton argument, which needs to be attached to a covering note explaining that this is necessary because the claimant has used its usual (known) tactic of re-pleading the entire case in a late WS, to catch consumers out.

You should also be armed with the Law Gazette article to question the rep's Right of Audience. Again, already covered on Britton's and KimmyHrunt's threads, who are also flinging together last minute skeleton arguments & rebuttals of the WS; you can't leave it unrebutted.