Court Case Gladstones next week, Court bundle finally received!

teccom

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I just need to clarify, as this is a little confusing:

Have they issued the claim to you an an individual person, not to the company?

Did you give the name and address of the driver at all, before proceedings began?

Have you got this CCTV as part of the evidence?



...because you haven't mentioned the CCTV evidence, here:






You need to submit your costs schedule/argument before the hearing, so is best taken there today as well. Also, ask the usher about playing your CCTV evidence, will it be OK for you to take a tablet or laptop in on the day or how will they enable your CCTV evidence that you were not driving? Make sure it is mentioned in your WS.




Have that at the front of the WS.

IamEmanresu wrote: »

It applies where there is a commercial relationship. Typically there is a belief that members of the same family cannot enter into contracts with each other e.g. a contract to do the ironing or tidy rooms. But there can be contracts where there is an intent to have a contract. So if Mr A works for Mr B or carries out commercial work, there is a contract.

Was there hired and reward? Driver is described as an employee.

Was the vehicle carrying out commercial work? Appears to be and would/should have the appropriate insurance I presume.

Was the Keeper engaged in a commercial activity? Was the van (apparently a personal vehicle) actually a commercial one.

As regards not mentioning it? PPC likely to have picked this one up given the OP's name and date of the case, so would be prepared to have it raised.

I will be prepared to have it raised, thanks for the input, also I deleted and amended what you stated mate in the latter part of the letter.

Did I mention my name?

From what i understand if the Judge accepts the Solicitor/paralegal/whatever to cross examine me I can be have no idea what his is talking about if he tries to reference Forums, and good luck to them as with VL surely I complied with the PoF and that is their whole WS for the case in the first place, of which they have decided to ignore where it suits.

teccom

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would include a request for the case to be struck out and include a version of LoadsofChildren123's costs application:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mc7xhbc2tsuz384/COSTS%20APPLICATION.docx?dl=0

You want some costs awarded as punitive measure at the court's discretion - so try that! Adapt it to suit, of course.

Include the proof that you did give the driver's name and address already. And include the point in schedule 4 that says a keeper discharges liability if they give the name and serviceable address of the driver, before proceedings commence.

The Judge will not do this for you and will not be familiar with the POFA Sch 4. Now is the time to push it all over like a house of cards and ask the Judge to recompense you for the 'vexatious' claim, which was wholly unreasonable from start to finish.

Link posted is dead?

Coupon-mad

She changed it/shortened it; you can click on LoadsofChildren123's username to find her new one.

teccom

Okay so judge struck out claim but issued me Court costs and minor expenses.
But insinuated although as letter of driver identity was not received by solicitors she was dubious to the assertion it was ever sent by me, but awarded me a win (strike out) on one hand, pushed costs on me on the other due to me not mentioning the letter in my initial defence, basically the letter was banded as a "trick", although one that awarded me a strike out on "parking charges".

My argument was that can be no "A" without a "B" and if PoFa states in schedule 4, section 5 (b) before "proceedings" and I informed them of driver as per Section 5 (b), prior to this then why was I being punished with "proceedings" costs, which the Judge wasn't too interested in!

TBH honest Judge was going to entirely kick me out, entire "loss" until I gave a copy of PoFa with highlighted sections, and then the Judge accepted letter was deemed as sent if stated as so, but I was confused as to how (out of had) (insinuated)) the fact that it hadn't been! Hence why costs had been awarded (to Claimant!

I stated to the Judge "another" upcoming MCOL claim by the Claimant had been brought and I was happy to return to fight it and I stated to the Claimant that Gladstones had ignored my letter of whom the driver was, to which the Claimant was sure they would not do such a thing, however he later personally emailed to me that GS acknowledged to the Claimant they did get a letter some "7", yes "7" days after by sending date and therefore it did not count!!!

Appeal or comments????

Umkomaas

Maybe I'm tired - but I don't understand much of this. Did you win or lose?

teccom

issued "billed me" Court costs, kind of said you are right and although you complied with PoFa I am not sure you did so therefore I am making you pay both Court costs and GS costs!!!

pappa_golf

how much are gladrags trying to charge?

teccom

Judge allowed £50 GS
Plus initial MCOL
Plus 55 court trial fee
Plus minor trivial meilage to claimant

pappa_golf

ah well at least it will have cost the scammer a lot more in gradrags payment

the scammers will have had to pay the court fees , so no profit there , and as above it will have cost them more than £50 to bring the charge (time and gladrags fees)

so I say they got a bloody nose

teccom

I consider that the costs are not covered in time lost so a result.

But strange, as it basically says "you are correct the MCOL case brought against you failed to comply with POFA, BUT you are liable for costs as they still brought MCOL case" eh?????.

Big issue is second case is to be dropped against me, this presents my chance to present that they didn't follow PoFa as they simply wont press with trial fee, this in my opinion would demonstrate the previous cases strength.