Take action or pay up?

Coupon-mad

Bumping this for others to see today, as I have no time!

tea_queen

Thanks Coupon-mad

Here's a link to my skeleton statement (ignore the highlighted yellow parts of the references - that's for me to remind me to include copies of them all)-

https://we.tl/oYloEoUTCs

Also, couple of questions:

- does it matter if I've lifted some of this from my original defence statement submitted?
- do I have to resubmit my defence statement as part of the bundle or is that part now done and dusted?
- is there a limit on the costs I can submit? I've just put my document together and got to the no. of hours spent working on the documentation etc and feels like I've spent an excessive number of hours on this - at £19 an hour that would be quite a substantial amount! (*never mind - found this conversation in a different post - such a shame can't claim back all of the hours!)


Thanks again for anyone that can offer advice/ opinions on this and my witness statement previously posted

The_Deep

(*never mind - found this conversation in a different post - such a shame can't claim back all of the hours!)

You can try, read this

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/judge-fed-up-with-gladstones-behaviour.html

If this is the general feeling amongst the judges you may get one who is prepared to come down hard on Gladstones, especially if they have behaved unreasonably and not met deadlines nor ollowed procedures. You will need to paint as black a picture as you can.

bargepole

tea_queen wrote: »

... Thanks again for anyone that can offer advice/ opinions on this and my witness statement previously posted

This should be headed 'Skeleton Argument' not Skeleton Statement.

Para. [8] is entirely misconceived You have said:

8. However, even if there was a contract, the provision of payment of £160 is an unenforceable penalty clause. The judgement of the Beavis case upheld the applicability of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. V Selfridge & Co Ltd. [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant; and (c) the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years.

Dunlop v Selfridge is the wrong case, the correct reference for penalties is Dunlop Tyre v New Garage and Motor Co. [1915] AC 79, but that has now been superseded by the ruling in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. It doesn't matter that the landowner or parking operator has suffered no loss, the Supreme Court ruling was that the penalty could be allowed to stand if it served a legitimate interest, such as deterring abuse of the parking facility.

I would delete that clause altogether, it is simply inviting the Judge to say "I am bound by the decision of a higher court", and find in favour of the Claimant.

tea_queen

The_Deep wrote: »

(*never mind - found this conversation in a different post - such a shame can't claim back all of the hours!)

You can try, read this

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/judge-fed-up-with-gladstones-behaviour.html

If this is the general feeling amongst the judges you may get one who is prepared to come down hard on Gladstones, especially if they have behaved unreasonably and not met deadlines nor ollowed procedures. You will need to paint as black a picture as you can.

Thanks to both of you for your replies I hope I get a judge as sympathetic as the one in that case! I'm counting down the weeks to get it over and done with!

Thanks for your guidance bargepole, I have removed that clause now, although unfortunately I think it featured in my defence statement also, will that matter?

bargepole

tea_queen wrote: »

!
Thanks for your guidance bargepole, I have removed that clause now, although unfortunately I think it featured in my defence statement also, will that matter?

That won't matter. If the Judge asks you about it, simply say that you are no longer pursuing that line of argument, and move on.

tea_queen

Hi all,

So I just received an email from Gladstones saying they've filed papers with the court to discontinue the case! Which I'm hoping is as it sounds and time for celebration, but as I have no trust in them I'm somewhat hesitant! I will call the court tomorrow to check they have received this, given that my statements should be submitted by 14th, but in theory this is a win?

bargepole

tea_queen wrote: »

Hi all,

So I just received an email from Gladstones saying they've filed papers with the court to discontinue the case! Which I'm hoping is as it sounds and time for celebration, but as I have no trust in them I'm somewhat hesitant! I will call the court tomorrow to check they have received this, given that my statements should be submitted by 14th, but in theory this is a win?

The court may not have processed the discontinuance notice that quickly, but yes, this is a win.

Even Gladstones wouldn't be so stupid as to tell the defendant it's discontinued and fail to notify the court. They often do discontinue claims when they can see they have little chance of success.

DoaM

bargepole wrote: »

Even Gladstones wouldn't be so stupid as to tell the defendant it's discontinued and fail to notify the court.

MIL or CEL on the other hand ......