Gladstones Court Papers

airman1232

Thanks all for our great help on this so far. I now have a date, altogh it appears that that Gladstone's did not submit some of their papers correctly, so they have to resubmit, im sure they will none the less.

Now, what is a witness statement? and apparently I need to provide any evidance I wish to use, 14 days before the hearing?

Coupon-mad

Yes, hopefully you've now looked again at the NEWBIES thread post #2, for those answers.

airman1232

Hi Guys,

This is what I have so far I know its weak but its a start, I have some questions and I once I have answeres I should be in a better place with this.

[FONT=&quot]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Claim No.: [/FONT][FONT=&quot]XXXXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Between[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]GLADSTONES SOLICITORS LTD[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot](Claimant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]-and- [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][NAME][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] (Defendant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]___________________________________________________________________________[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]WITNESS STATEMENT[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]___________________________________________________________________________[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I [NAME] of [ADDRESS] am the defendant in this case.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from over two years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The claimant has failed to properly respond to my request made on [DATE] by royal mail postal service, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner’s behalf. My request has not been acknowledged.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.[/FONT]


Regarding point #3 above, this was a part 18 request, I can see it was signed for, but I have never recieved a reply.


Regarding the post on the newbies thread. A, B and C, are these relevant to me, for example I can go to the site and take photos and videos etc, but as this happened some year ago, is this still relevant? They can argue the signage was correct at the time of issueing the PCN?


D - (Schedule 4 POFA) - I believe this I should use as the NTK was not correct. I have linked to it in a previous post.


E - (a copy of Henry Greenslade's wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 'Understanding Keeper Liability' if defending as keeper.) This I can use too.


F - Not applicable in this case


G - Depening on A,B, C is today signage still relvant if the PCN was issued over two years ago?


H- Grace periods, again I can use this, however are they under any obligation to note down when the vehicle was first seen and when the PCN was issued, Im unsure if the grace period was in place in 2014?


I - Not applicable.


Sorry for all the questions, I just want to get this 100% right.


Other notes.
The site is managed by a proprerty management company, who have said to me, they do not have any agreement in place with the parking company who issued the PCN. The previous site property managment company did have an agreement with the parking company that issued the PCN. I have no idea when/if it had an expiry date etc.


The Property Management company looking after the resedential side and resedential bays, does not have any agreements with the parking company that issued the PCN.


My request for information from the parking company that issued the PCN has been ignored. They are not registed with the ICO when I checked. Do they have a legal requirement to be? Can I inlcude my this request was not acknowged, it not relating to gladstone but relates to the case?



They have previosuley been suspend from the BPA - No Proof.


.............this is stessful, cant wait for it to be over.

airman1232

Hey, Guys.

Im going to send this on Monday morning, I know your all busy enjoying your weekend, better than mine I hope just done an office move been up since 5am.

Just wondering if anyone can review this before I send, if not no worries. I appreciate all your help so far.

Coupon-mad

Regarding the post on the newbies thread. A, B and C, are these relevant to me, for example I can go to the site and take photos and videos etc, but as this happened some year ago, is this still relevant? They can argue the signage was correct at the time of issuing the PCN?

They could, but they have to show their evidence to you as well. So if you suspect the signs might be the same, go and get some pics of them obscured by foliage, etc.!

I'm unsure if the grace period was in place in 2014?

You can look at previous versions of the CoP, but were AM Parking in the BPA then or the IPC, you'd have to check.

My request for information from the parking company that issued the PCN has been ignored. They are not registed with the ICO when I checked. Do they have a legal requirement to be? Can I inlcude my this request was not acknowged, it not relating to gladstone but relates to the case?

They MUST be ICO registered, maybe under a trading name? And they should certainly respond to requests for information, from a consumer.

airman1232

Thanks all for your help.

Unfortuantely I lost this one.
The judge ruled that on the chance of probability I was likely be the driver I was really annoyed and don't remember much beyond this point. I need to pay around £208.

The Judge didnt seem to care that:
1. Gladstones didnt reply to my part 18 request.
2. AM Secure didnt reply to my Data Protection Request. - Said this is a seperate matter and I should raise with with the relevant parties (ICO)
3. POFA 8 (5) - the judge said he want not familiar with this law and did not have the text books to look it up.
4. Said the signange was irrelevant and it was marked on the floor saying 'Private Bay' and as I did not have a permit to park there.
5. Also raised that Gladstones didnt send the Witnress Statement within the 14 day, however he said this was irrelevant.

So annoyed right now, I certainly feel hard don, but I don't want to waste any more eneergy on this. So I think im jsut going to pay.

Once again, I would like to thank you all for your help.

Umkomaas

What a sad, misguided judgment. The main points of dismissal have been accepted many more times in other similar cases - 'presumption of driver', 'PoFA', 'forbidding signage'.

I'm sorry it turned out this way for you, understand your anger and frustration and why your (emotional) energy levels are sapped.

DJ bingo in full evidence.

Are you going hit back on the data protection front via the ICO, once the dust has settled?

Guys_Dad

Bad decisions such as this are precisely why I caution us being super-over-confident of our advice and offering 100% success to members.

Sure, our advice has helped a overwhelming number of motorists avoid paying these leeches, but we must always point out that uninformed, rogue judges abound and can produce bizarre judgments.

We are not aware of the financial positions of all OPs and it is their money at risk. I believe in giving them all the help and advice but never to persuade them that they are on a cast iron win.

I am truly sorry, airman1232, you should not have lost and the help you were given was all good. But when someone isn't up to speed with the law................

Coupon-mad

airman1232 wrote: »

Thanks all for your help.

Unfortuantely I lost this one.
The judge ruled that on the chance of probability I was likely be the driver I was really annoyed and don't remember much beyond this point. I need to pay around £208.

The Judge didnt seem to care that:
1. Gladstones didnt reply to my part 18 request.
2. AM Secure didnt reply to my Data Protection Request. - Said this is a seperate matter and I should raise with with the relevant parties (ICO)
3. POFA 8 (5) - the judge said he want not familiar with this law and did not have the text books to look it up.
4. Said the signange was irrelevant and it was marked on the floor saying 'Private Bay' and as I did not have a permit to park there.
5. Also raised that Gladstones didnt send the Witnress Statement within the 14 day, however he said this was irrelevant.

So annoyed right now, I certainly feel hard don, but I don't want to waste any more eneergy on this. So I think im jsut going to pay.


Once again, I would like to thank you all for your help.

Almost unheard of, and inexcusable that the judge would not consider the POFA 2012, which is a statute which the Judge could have looked up easily. Which court?

Not Wigan, was it? Or Swansea?

This woud be worth appealing, it seems. There appear to be issues where the Judge erred in law.

''Signage is irrelevant''. So, the bay lines told you about the £100 parking charge, did they?

And the Judge thought that an assumption could be made about the driver, with no evidence?

airman1232

Thanks Guys for the comments.

I have put this on a credit card and will pay it over the next couple of months.

It was Maidstone court. I have considered appealing, but I think that I don't even want to waste any more energy on this. Do you know the cost of appealing, also could they gain more if I loose agin?

I will certainly be following up with the ICO, these cowboys deserved to be closed down.