Looks like I am going to court with Gladstones.

The_Deep

OAB, I have no argument to counter your caution. It is not the course I would follow, but I am probably more comfortable with risk than you.

Best of luck and, when you prevail, do not be reticent in extracting your revenge. Do not let the judge fob you off with a measly £100 expenses, go for the jackpot, unreasonable behaviour.

bargepole

I helped one OP who received a 180-page 'reply to defence' from Parking Eye. He responded with a witness statement, and supporting evidence, which rebutted all their arguments point by point, in a document of such Tolstoyesque length that it even dwarfed CM's efforts.

Both parties had originally agreed that the case should be heard on the papers only, but the Judge took one look at the bundles and rescheduled it for a two hour hearing with both parties to attend.

PE bailed out at short notice, and the defendant arranged a costs hearing where he successfully reclaimed his photocopying and printing costs.

The_Deep

PE bailed out at short notice, and the defendant arranged a costs hearing where he successfully reclaimed his photocopying and printing costs.

And what about compensation for his time? I expect he just rolled over when the judge said no.

MothballsWallet

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Do I look stupid?!! No-one would say that.

Let's see how they cope with the Brexit issue...(I think we all have a fair idea).

But it wouldn't surprise an old cynic like me - Capita have loads of Govt contracts (TfL, TV Licence, Congestion Charge, to name just 3, I'm sure I've forgotten a lot more) - although the Judiciary represent the Queen, she's a Constitutional Monarch, so merely rubber stamps laws (Royal Assent) after they've passed the House of Lords.

So I'd doubt that Capita are someone to upset - but that's just my view, take it for what you will.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

PE bailed out at short notice, and the defendant arranged a costs hearing where he successfully reclaimed his photocopying and printing costs.

And what about compensation for his time? I expect he just rolled over when the judge said no.

Why would you think that? I don't help people, as I've pointed out many times before, unless they are likely to make the 'right' sort of defendant - in other words, someone who can take a hot buttered crumpet up the rear end without blubbing.

In this case he was awarded costs for time and travel as well, not as much as he was hoping for, but probably the best he could do with that Judge.

Coupon-mad

Yep bargepole helps people who are robust enough in their own right to cope at a hearing and I help all defendants, even lost causes, because it's always worth a try, I am quite a patient person and most people can be coached to win, I find.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yep bargepole helps people who are robust enough in their own right to cope at a hearing and I help all defendants, even lost causes, because it's always worth a try, I am quite a patient person and most people can be coached to win, I find.

Agreed, the problem is that most normal people cannot be robust when it comes to the parking scammers and their vulture solicitors.

The DRP types of this world are just simple cretins who rely on empty threats. The so called solicitors such as BWLegal, Gladstones, Wright Hassall, are leeches who attach themselves to a scam.

When I look at the BWLegal web site, it is so amateurish, it's no wonder the prankster reports BWLegal as being so incompetent.

And then there is Gladstones who run a totally incompetent so called joke ATA service and just like BWLegal are incompetent in court.

The key to this stupidity is Marcus Jones MP of the DCLG.
All Jones does is keep on saying mañana .. mañana, mañana

I am very grateful that Marcus Jones is not my local MP as the man is a complete waste of space

onearmbandit

I am so so sorry to everyone. I have messed up!

Yesterday I received a letter from the courts saying they could not process my defence because I didn't provide the PCN number. I can't believe it!!! I added the Claim no which I assumed was all that was needed to match the defence sent to the claim made by the claimant. It asks me to re-send the defence with the PCN

I was going to post this today and then, just now, I have seen another letter for me. I opened it - IT IS JUDGEMENT FOR CLAIMANT STATING DEFENDANT TO PAY £254.53!!!!!!!!!!

I lost!!!!!!!!!

I am devastated. Not only can I not afford to pay this sum I am morally heartbroken. I have done nothing wrong. I sent my defence in on time - they have responded to me knowing this yet have not given me a chance

My defence was received 16th January - they only responded 23 Jan (received 26th Jan)

they gave me no time to get the PCN number to them within the 33 days from 15th January which was the date of issue of the CCc

I am so so so sorry to all of you.

I am gutted.

hoohoo

That doesn't sound right. The courts don't need a PCN number.

beamerguy

onearmbandit wrote: »

I am so so sorry to everyone. I have messed up!

Yesterday I received a letter from the courts saying they could not process my defence because I didn't provide the PCN number. I can't believe it!!! I added the Claim no which I assumed was all that was needed to match the defence sent to the claim made by the claimant. It asks me to re-send the defence with the PCN

I was going to post this today and then, just now, I have seen another letter for me. I opened it - IT IS JUDGEMENT FOR CLAIMANT STATING DEFENDANT TO PAY £254.53!!!!!!!!!!

I lost!!!!!!!!!

I am devastated. Not only can I not afford to pay this sum I am morally heartbroken. I have done nothing wrong. I sent my defence in on time - they have responded to me knowing this yet have not given me a chance

My defence was received 16th January - they only responded 23 Jan (received 26th Jan)

they gave me no time to get the PCN number to them within the 33 days from 15th January which was the date of issue of the CCc

I am so so so sorry to all of you.

I am gutted.

assume you had a court date ?

Was this from the court ?

IT IS JUDGEMENT FOR CLAIMANT STATING DEFENDANT TO PAY £254.53