Part 18 Gladstones/Millennium Swansea

LucyBea

Thank you IamEmanresu!

Unsurprisingly I have had no response for Gladstones to my Part 18 request (emailed about 3 weeks ago - but they managed to fill out and send the DQ!! Grrr :mad: ) so I was planning on sending another in the post.
Does anyone have any views on that? It wouldn't take me long, if they ignore it it builds the case they are completely unreasonable, if they answer it at least I have some more information.

Also I did want to send a letter to India Beavan of Millennium as per a suggestion on parking prankster: she backed out of a case with no keeper liability, so I was going to point out the same issue in my case.
(parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/india-beavan-agrees-to-drop-millenium.html)

Is it okay to contact the Claimant directly though? Or does that "look bad"?

Thank you for any advice!

pappa_golf

you are attempting to resolve this before court

Coupon-mad

You can certainly contact the Claimant. Go for it!

But I wouldn't give Gladstones a chance to rectify their oversight in not responding to your Part 18 request. Let them stew then use that against them in your WS later on.

LucyBea

Update for anyone following this thread & learning about Gladstones' tactics:

I phoned court, they told me the Claimant was "jumping the gun" and that they hadn't even heard from them yet and wouldn't send me the DQ until they had heard they were proceeding with the Claim. So the DQ they sent me is clearly just another photocopied mass mailing!!

I received this 10 days ago, and the first sentence of the letter they enclosed "We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client's intention to proceed with the claim" is therefore completely untrue!

I know regulars will not be surprised at all but I really do find it amazing that a firm of Solicitors can get away with this dishonesty.

Anyway, I will be waiting - because if they don't meet the 28 day deadline the case will be stayed and they will have to pay a fee to open it again.

Umkomaas

Just a whisper of caution - some courts are experiencing a serious backlog in dealing with administration, so don't fall asleep on this. The DQ may be sitting in a pile of unopened post.

beamerguy

"I know regulars will not be surprised at all but I really do find it amazing that a firm of Solicitors can get away with this dishonesty"

You are talking about real solicitors ?
Gladstones are simply an incompetent lot who run the IPC/IAS scam

Normal solicitors will be ashamed that Gladstones give the
legal profession a bad name

The_Deep

LucyBea wrote: »

Update for anyone following this thread & learning about Gladstones' tactics:

I phoned court, they told me the Claimant was "jumping the gun" and that they hadn't even heard from them yet and wouldn't send me the DQ until they had heard they were proceeding with the Claim.

I know regulars will not be surprised at all but I really do find it amazing that a firm of Solicitors can get away with this dishonesty.
.

Send the court a record of this conversation to create a paper trail which you might be able to use to your advantage at a later date.

LucyBea

So I'm a wee bit confused...

Umkomaas, when you say the DQ could be in an unopened pile of post, I thought the Court only sent them out once the Claimant decided to proceed with the Claim? According to the Court, they have not yet said they are proceeding, so I was working under the assumption that Gladstones/Millennium will not have even received their DQ?

The one they sent me actually has the correct Claim number on it, as if it came from the Court. Perhaps I am chasing shadows again but it kind of looks to me like Gladstones are faking court documents?

Anyway I am sending copies of it to Court with a letter, as suggested by The Deep.

Loadsofchildren123

I think Umkomaas means their notification to the court that they wish to proceed.


After that's processed the court sends out a DQ to each party with an order saying when it must be returned (and making a preliminary allocation to the small claims track).


Rule 18 doesn't actually apply to small claims. Rule 27.2(3) says that "The court of its own initiative may order a party to provide further information if it considers it appropriate to do so".


When you return the DQ, send in a covering letter saying this:


Dear Sirs


[Claim number]


I enclose my completed Directions Questionnaire. When the District Judge considers what directions are appropriate in this case I would ask that s/he considers the following:


1. I request that the court makes an order under Rule 27.2(3) for the Claimant to provide the information requested by me on [date] (copy [letter/request] attached). The information was requested because the Claimant's Particulars of Claim give scant information about the Claim or how the Claimant will prove it, and it did not comply with its obligations in 6(a)/(c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. This leaves me in the difficult position of having had to file a Defence when I have very little understanding of the Claim I must meet and how the Claimant will evidence it. The information requested is all designed to make up for the failure to provide such information at the pre-action phase of these proceedings and to particularise the claim adequately (as required by Rule 16.4). I ask for a consequential order that I be permitted to amend my Defence, if I wish to do so, once this information has been provided.


2. Alternatively, the court may consider that the Claim should be struck out now pursuant to Rule 3.4, since the Particulars disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or are an abuse of process (they are so brief as to be incoherent), and/or because of the Claimant's refusal to comply with paragraphs 6(a) and (c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.


3. If the court is not minded to make the order under 2 above, I also request an order for sequential service of evidence, rather than exchange (for the same reasons).


Yours faithfully etc.


2. above may not apply to you if their particulars do include at least some details. The ones in my case were so brief as to be incoherent - basically just a series of letters and numbers (which were the car reg, the pcn number and the date, but not described as such) followed by some figures of what was claimed without any explanation how they'd been calculated - no reference eg to the vehicle being parked in x location on x date in breach of contract. I'd expect yours to be the same as it's same solicitors and same PPC.


You can also say in this letter that you have received a Form N159 from Gladstones [this is the request for the whole thing to be dealt with on paper, with no hearing] but you do not agree that the direction should be given because you wish to defend the claim at a hearing.

LucyBea

Hooray - I received a Notice of Discontinuance from Gladstones!

I did check with the court, it's true!
:j
Thank you amazing people for all the help!

As mentioned previously in this thread, I did indeed write directly to Millennium pointing out no keeper liability as in the similar case on parking prankster, and that I would be claiming costs for their unreasonable behaviour if the case was dismissed because of this.

I *had* received a legitimate directions questionnaire, which I had not yet responded to when I received the discontinuance notice.

I notice that Loadsofchildren suggested to SimonSam1964 to claim for costs and I'm thinking of doing this. Only... is there any risk involved here? I'm so relieved just not to have to worry about this anymore, mightn't they pay to go after me again if I push any buttons?

How long will I have to send a costs schedule to the court? My DQ was to be due 27 July.

Thank you so much!
:beer: