Gladstones court letter parking on double yellow lines

Coupon-mad

Did you read the court hearing letter...?

If your claim number is D4GF9015, a little bird told me that case is listed for a prompt 10am start at High Wycombe, not Reading. No UKCPM cases are listed at Reading tomorrow, apparently.

Reading do all the admin for High Wycombe, so that court may have been mentioned on an Order but not as the location - YOU MUST CHECK YOUR LETTER THAT GAVE THE COURT DATE.

That means aiming to get to High Wycombe Court by 9.30 at the latest, armed with the evidence you wish to show the Judge (Google Streetview and whatever else you are taking) and a note to help you point out to the Judge, the gaps in the Claimant's evidence as IamEmanresu pointed out. Make your notes tonight then get some sleep!

If you are in any doubt as to the venue, I'd go to High Wycombe Court (if that is your claim number above in bold) for 9am, if I were you. Take proof of your daily rate salary/loss of leave for the morning attendance in case the Judge agrees with you that the Claimant's evidence has not made out their case, and then you can ask the Judge for your costs before you leave the room.

Good luck!

Sb1971

Thank you CouponMad, the hearing is at High Wycombe my local court and the number is D1GF3Q8G.
I will be therein plenty of time.

beamerguy

Sb1971 wrote: »

Thank you CouponMad, the hearing is at High Wycombe my local court and the number is D1GF3Q8G.
I will be therein plenty of time.

Good luck .... don't forget your costs

Sb1971

WE WON, yippee. With costs awarded too!
Thank you so much guys, love you all

RobinofLoxley

Well done, tell us what happened when you get back down to planet earth
:beer:

beamerguy

Sb1971 wrote: »

WE WON, yippee. With costs awarded too!
Thank you so much guys, love you all

Well done :beer:

The great Gladstones court timewasting machine whooped again

Gladstones are simply a huge joke :rotfl::rotfl:

Sb1971

Just to update you:

We arrived with street view pictures as advised along with my son's own pictures that he had taken showing the signage no longer in situ along with where his vehicle had been parked from various angles. We also printed IamEmanresu suggestion of:
"Don't bother then and apologise to the court for your lack of knowledge of the court procedures. Instead tell the judge that you will rely on the Claimant's details as they fail to make the case they claim, are simply a regurgitation of a template and don't really add any light to the issue of the scope of the claimant's authority (the land), or whether the signs were capable of forming a contract. That presumes that those signs were actually there as all the signs have now been taken down.
Add that it is a very poor pack and you have been denied the chance of cross examining the claimant on it."

Pictures and the above statement were handed to the usher on arrival.

Once in the court the judge briefly went through our original defence letter and Gladstones witness statement asking my son a few questions.

He dismissed the case based on the fact my son had reversed from the main road into the space where he was parked, the sign was behind the vehicle on a fence pointing in the other direction therefore my son did not see the sign.

From what i gather (as i was in the room too) the judge would have looked at the point about their right to the land but my son didn't really elaborate on this point.

The judge asked if my son wanted to claim for costs, he also advised we keep the paperwork for a short time in case Gladstones appeal the decision.

Again, I can't thank you guys enough, although it was time consuming doing the research and also quite stressful and worrying it was worth it in the end.

beamerguy

Great stuff.

The courts are getting a bad whiff nowadays of the
nasty smell Gladstones create

Guess they could appeal but no doubt they would lose
again ..... utter timewasters

Coupon-mad

Yay, well done - another one bites the dust!

People are not stuffed - sometimes even with no WS and evidence filed.

Not that we recommend going off piste like this, but it just goes to show how poor Gladstones cases are.

System

Edit: Wrong place