Proceedings issued, NTK invalid, Gladstones/Millennium refusing to respond

Loadsofchildren123

I have served a formal Part 18 Request for information/documents, if anyone wants to see this happy to post it, it may be a useful precedent.
I've put Gladstones on notice that \i intend to seek a wasted costs order - this is where the solicitors personally have to pay, not the client, because of their behaviour. They have to report this to their insurers.

I simply can't understand why they are not withdrawing. Or do they just read nothing until the day of the hearing when their incompetent solicitor will then panic?

beamerguy

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I have served a formal Part 18 Request for information/documents, if anyone wants to see this happy to post it, it may be a useful precedent.
I've put Gladstones on notice that \i intend to seek a wasted costs order - this is where the solicitors personally have to pay, not the client, because of their behaviour. They have to report this to their insurers.

I simply can't understand why they are not withdrawing. Or do they just read nothing until the day of the hearing when their incompetent solicitor will then panic?

To Gladstones this is just a game.
Gladstones has become so well known by the courts for their incompetence that with a flick of a finger the case is dismissed

I am convinced that William Hurley of Gladstones has a mental problem

Stick to your guns, whoop them in court and cost them money

StaffsSW

I'm watching this with interest - I too have a claim pending for the same location, however as a fleet manager I'm taking a different approach to it and focusing more on Keeper Liability.

I submitted by acknowledgement and initial defence back in October, but not heard anything since...

Loadsofchildren123

odd that you have heard nothing Staffs, I wonder if the court has mislaid the file so nothing's being done at their end. The sending out of a Directions Questionnaire and then transfer to your local court is something that should happen automatically I think. But obviously not in your interests to chase and Gladstones probably haven't realised.
Beamer I'm hoping that it will be as simple as a click of the fingers!

Coupon-mad

Sounds like in Staffs case, the other side didn't even bother to complete their DQ and let it drop! A phone call to the Court can check, is the case ''stayed'', why not yet struck out after all this time, etc?

Loadsofchildren123

Part 18 Request in case anyone finds this useful (ref Rule 18 of the cPR). It's unformatted itself a bit:


_____________________________________________________________

DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 18.1
____________________________________________________________



Under paragraph 2 of the Statement xxx and pages xxx of the exhibit
Of “The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’)”:
1. The Agreement dated 28.1.14 refers to a plan or map (paragraph 3). Please produce the said plan/map showing the area upon which the Claimant is authorised to operate on.
2. Which part of the Agreement authorises the Claimant and/or Millennium Parking Services to issue and pursue legal proceedings against the Defendant in its own right/name?
3. Please produce evidence of the ownership of the “Relevant Land” by [signatory to the contract], by way of Land Registry Official Copy Register Entries and title plan or otherwise
4. If [xxx] does not own the Relevant Land please produce the chain of contracts authorising them to enter into the Agreement with the Claimant
5. What is the legal status of “Millennium Parking Services”? Is it a registered company, in which case please provide its company number? If it is claimed that it is a “trading as” identity of the Claimant please produce evidence of this.
6. Under what basis is it claimed that the Claimant is entitled to bring this claim, given that the Agreement is between Millennium Parking Services (ie not the Claimant) and [xxxx] (who appears not to be the owner of the Relevant Land)
7. The Defendant understands that the contract between [xxx] and Millennium Parking Services has been terminated in respect of all or a part of the Relevant Land due to so many complaints being received by the landowner and/or its managing agents about the manner in which Millennium Parking Services and/or the Claimant has issued and pursued parking charges. Please produce evidence of the date of termination, or if it is claimed that the Agreement has not been terminated evidence that this is the case.
8. With reference to clause 3b of the Terms and Conditions appended to the Agreement, please produce evidence that [xxx] informed Millennium Parking Services that the vehicle was parked without authority

Of “ii) The Sign (i.e. the Contract)” and page 6 of the exhibit

9. Please refer to questions 14-17 below.

Under paragraphs5 and 6 of the Statement of xxx
Of “the Defendant is pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’)” and “The relevant Notice was/were sent to the Defendant in accordance with the Act”
10. Please produce evidence that the Claimant made a valid application for keeper’s details in accordance with paragraph 11, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act.
Under paragraph 8 of the Statement of xxx
Of “the Defendant failed to correctly display a permit at the time of the incident”
11. In what manner is it claimed the permit was not correctly displayed and/or was not valid?
12. Please produce a better resolution photograph than those appended to the Statement showing the permit it is claimed was invalidly displayed (in the photographs supplied it cannot be seen that the permit is not valid)
13. Please produce a high resolution specimen of a valid permit so that the Defendant can see what this looks like and how its appearance departs from the permit shown in the photographs appended to the Statement
Of “The signs make it clear that a valid permit must be displayed” and of page 4 of the exhibit to the Statement
14. The plan at page 4 of the exhibit to the Statement is illegible. Please produce a proper legible plan of the area of the Relevant Land where it is claimed the vehicle was parked and of the vehicular entrance to the said Land, showing the location of each sign present on 31 October 2015 (including any sign at the entrance to the Relevant Land), and showing the exact location of the vehicle which is the subject matter of the Claim.
15. If more than one type of sign was displayed, please produce the wording of each, and show on the plan where each different type of sign was displayed
16. In respect of the signs identified on the said plan, please provide details of:
i. the height at which each was displayed,
ii. the measurement of each sign in metres/centimetres,
iii. the precise wording on each sign,
iv. the font and font sizeon each sign (where different fonts/font sizes were used please identify which font/size with reference to the wording on each sign)
Where different signs were displayed, please produce this information in respect of every different sign and please show the location of the different types of sign with reference to the plan
17. Please produce evidence that the copy of the sign appended to the Statement matches the signs on display on [date of parking], cross referred to the plan requested under 14 above
Underparagraphs 9 and 10 of the Statement of xxx:
“the charge”:
18. Please explain the additional charge of £50 which, in the Notice to Keeper and in the Claim Form, has been added to the charge detailed on the Notice to Driver? To what does this relate and under what provision of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is this recoverable from a registered keeper (should the latter be held liable for the parking charge set out in the Notice to Driver)?


This Request is made pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the CPR. The Claimant is asked to provide the information requested on or before [xxx].

System

I am convinced that William Hurley of Gladstones has a mental problem

His issue is his arrogance when it comes to the law

http://www.winsfordguardian.co.uk/news/9031620.Solicitor_speaks_out_after_court_ordeal/

bargepole

StaffsSW wrote: »

I'm watching this with interest - I too have a claim pending for the same location, however as a fleet manager I'm taking a different approach to it and focusing more on Keeper Liability.

I submitted by acknowledgement and initial defence back in October, but not heard anything since...

If the driver was an employee of your company, they wouldn't need to rely on keeper liability, they could plead employers' vicarious liability, as per CPS v AJH Films.

StaffsSW

bargepole wrote: »

If the driver was an employee of your company, they wouldn't need to rely on keeper liability, they could plead employers' vicarious liability, as per CPS v AJH Films.

In this case, it's a one of the lease vehicles I manage, but I'll look into that case for a ticket against one of the company use cars at the moment.

Thanks!

StaffsSW

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sounds like in Staffs case, the other side didn't even bother to complete their DQ and let it drop! A phone call to the Court can check, is the case ''stayed'', why not yet struck out after all this time, etc?

Just confirmed with CCBC that it is indeed stayed, and will cost Gladstones a fee to reinstate it.

Unlikely I'll hear anything back now, and given it would cost me £100 to have it struck out, I'm happy to leave the paperwork in a file, and move on to some fun with MIL...