We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Judge fed up with Gladstones behaviour
Options
pappa_golf
Posts: 8,895 Forumite
Judge fed up with Gladstones behaviour
PPM v Keeper. C7GF75EN. Wakefield. 20/07/2017
The claim was for 2 PCNs at Travelodge, Hounslow.
The hearing (keeper report)
The judge dismissed the claim. She said that she was sick of telling Gladstones the same things.
Their witness statement was not good enough.
The proof of signage was no good.
They they had not made it clear whether it was the driver or the keeper they were claiming from.
They had no right to claim for additional monies other than the £100 per ticket that they had originally specified.
She insinuated that their business model seemed to to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court.
My witness statement was never even mentioned and I never had to open my mouth in court other than to say "Thank you ma'am".
Prankster Note
This judge seems to have hit the nail on the head
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/judge-fed-up-with-gladstones-behaviour.html
PPM v Keeper. C7GF75EN. Wakefield. 20/07/2017
The claim was for 2 PCNs at Travelodge, Hounslow.
The hearing (keeper report)
The judge dismissed the claim. She said that she was sick of telling Gladstones the same things.
Their witness statement was not good enough.
The proof of signage was no good.
They they had not made it clear whether it was the driver or the keeper they were claiming from.
They had no right to claim for additional monies other than the £100 per ticket that they had originally specified.
She insinuated that their business model seemed to to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court.
My witness statement was never even mentioned and I never had to open my mouth in court other than to say "Thank you ma'am".
Prankster Note
This judge seems to have hit the nail on the head
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/judge-fed-up-with-gladstones-behaviour.html
Save a Rachael
buy a share in crapita
buy a share in crapita
0
Comments
-
Costs? Surely unreasonable behaviour?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
-
The Gladstones boys .. Mr Bean and Mr Bean, are just like
two naughty out of control schoolboys
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards