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

Loadsofchildren123

Lucky you Staffs, I wish it was mine that was stayed
I've been reading up on rights of audience today. That's a real gem to keep up my sleeve
Any feedback on the defence?

Molts

“A full file of evidence was presented to the Crown Prosecution Service who directed that a Prosecution case should be pursued against Mr Hurley in relation to perverting the course of justice.

“A Jury at Preston Crown Court has found Mr Hurley not guilty of the offence for which he was charged, and we acknowledge this decision."

Ironic decision considering he currently "perverts the course of justice" with Gladstones on a daily basis.

Loadsofchildren123

what was that from Molts? In what context was the accusation made (hoping it was in relation to these damned parking ticket cases)
Edit:
Sorry, have just read the previous poster's link. Well he is a lovely sounding boy isn't he, presumably it was all about whether he was lying for his friends. He obviously thinks he is cleverer than everyone else.

Loadsofchildren123

Is there anything I'm not doing/saying that I should be doing/saying?
Hearing is 31 March. I will do a skeleton citing all the relevant cases under each part of the defence. I exhibited things like POFA Schedule 4 and the extract of the POPLA report to the statement.
There is no provision for this in the order but skeletons are usually standard in other (non small track) cases so I can't think the court would reject it. Particularly if I have given notice to Gladstones that I am going to do one. In other cases parties are ordered to exchange Skeletons 3 or so days before the hearing when the trial bundle is ready, and you then cross refer the skeleton to page numbers in the bundle. Exchange being the crucial word here - they shouldn't get mine til I get theirs, but I will file it at court. When do you think I should do it?

Coupon-mad

You need to file your WS and evidence before the deadline given, then when you see the other side's WS, you can then respond (to the Court and other side, again) with a skeleton argument, citing all the relevant cases under each part of the defence.

Loadsofchildren123

Thanks. Witness statements went in 2 weeks ago. I'll do the skeleton next week then. Hearing isn't until 31 March. I'm waiting on the court's response to my strikeout application so will give it a week or so before doing the Skeleton.

Loadsofchildren123

I've had this response to my Part 18 Request (CPR Part 18 and Practice Direction 18 provide that you can ask questions about the Claim and they should answer them, and that you can ask the court to make an order if they don't).
"Please note that your request does not comply with paragraph 1.2 of Practice Direction 18 'a request should be concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necesary and proportionate to enable the first party to prepare his own case or to understand the case he has to meet'.
As such, you will not receive a response to your request and we will await the outcome of the hearing on [x]"
The Pt 18 Request asked for things like proof that the company they contracted with to manage the parking is actually the landowner - a fairly crucial piece of information, and it asked what was the legal status of "Millennium Parking Services" which was the other party to the contract. It also asked for them to identify things like the size of the signs and the font on them and to identify in relation to the car where each sign was on the relevant date, and whether there were different signs with different wording and so on.
The blank refusal is contemptuous of the court process and of the Defendant's ability properly to defend the claim, but what is new. I could apply to force them to answer it, but that would cost a fee of £255 just to issue. So I think I am better off just drawing this to the court's attention - I will write now to criticise them and to say that if they seek later on to adduce at the last minute ANY of the information/evidence I've asked for, having refused to provide it to me now, that I will seek an order that they be barred from relying on it.
Do the regulars on here who have experience of these things agree that this is the best way forward?
I wonder if I should also tell the court because it surely adds weight to the request that the court strikes out the claim.

Umkomaas

That seems a standard response I've seen reported a few times. I'm no expert, but laying out your prior warning to them looks right and proper to me.

Loadsofchildren123

I wrote to the court and Gladstones.
It will be drawn to the court's attention that they consider an invitation to a Claimant to prove their claim is "unnecessary and disproportionate". That's an interesting stance to take.
Obviously in the normal world this would result in a punitive costs order - am I entitled to seek any costs at all if this is small claims?


I'm really tempted to issue an application, but I'm not sure I'd get a date before the final hearing (end March) anyway.
I'm a bit miffed that the court is allowing this. I've written three times now to ask for them to strike this out or summarily adjudge it: the first asking for a simple strikeout based on the Particulars, the second time when I filed the Amended Defence and the Part 18 Request and just now that they have refused to answer it. It's lazy judging to make the Defendant go to court and argue this out, this could and should be dealt with on the papers and the court has the clear power to do this of its own volition rather than making a Defendant spend £255 on an application fee (when the entire amount claimed is less than that!

Loadsofchildren123

I have them on keeper liability so don't think the contractual points will ever need to be argued. However, I wonder if I am onto something with the fact that the signatory to the contract with the party who purports to be the landowner is an entity that has no legal personality of its own - it's not a company, partnership, human being or anything. It's just a name (Millennium Parking Services) they've made up and describe as a "division" of the limited company (Millennium Door and Event Security Limited). The Claimant is the limited company. So if the Claimant hasn't signed up to the contract, and a meaningless name has which has no legal personality of its own (ie no right to sue or be sued), how can it be valid and how can they seek to enforce it? I couldn't, for instance, sign up to a contract as Jane Loveday when I am really Janice Jones, because in some contexts that's what I like to be called - I am Janice Jones, that is my legal name, that is who I am and that is the only name in which I can sue (of course if I'd described myself as Jane Loveday aka Janice Jones (or is it the other way round?) then that would be OK. But they didn't do that).


The contract was printed on paper that at the bottom says the name of the ltd co, that it is trading as "the Millennium Group" and then lists a few names (incl Millennium Parking Services) which it says are "divisions" of the company.


In the words of Trump, I think they've made a "yuge" mistake here in the ltd co not signing the contract.
Any thoughts on this?


If I was to win on this point, that means that not a single Millennium ticket is enforceable (which would also be "yuge" for the residents of Swansea). I wouldn't have thought they'd want to set this precedent and would be discontinuing. But no.