Gladstones --- THE PURGE

The_Deep

As Gladstones are known to ignore anything they do not
understand, it is possible such requests will be ignored

In which case, one sends another, then another, and keep on sending them.

I recently won an adjudication against Orange as I sent them six reminders which they ignored, It did not go down very well with the Ombudsman.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

As Gladstones are known to ignore anything they do not
understand, it is possible such requests will be ignored

In which case, one sends another, then another, and keep on sending them.

QUESTION AND ANSWER TIME

Applicable to ALL legals trying to extort money

Gladstones, BWLegal, Wright Hassall, SCS Law and IE Legal

DENY ANY DEBT AND REQUEST PROOF

DELAYING TACTICS UNTIL THE 1ST OCT 2017

beamerguy

A reminder

[Deleted User]

From a well known advocacy business...

http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/latest-news/2017/april/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims/

Umkomaas

Johnersh wrote: »

From a well known advocacy business...

http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/latest-news/2017/april/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims/

Thanks for the heads up on the above.

In your professional opinion (please don't send me an invoice! ), do you think this will make one iota of difference to the likes of Gladstones, BW Legal, SCS Law, Miah, Wright Hassall and their ilk, chomping along the bottom, chasing private parking charges?

Are our tactics/workloads likely to change?

[Deleted User]

IMHO the position will be this:

Will it reduce volumes?
Slightly - because more manual processing will be required to produce the additional documents and respond (at least to begin with).

Will it change the general practice of the PPCs?
Not markedly.

Will it allow better defences to be filed, referencing the actual contract?
Probably.

Will the PPCs provide the signage as the contract and resist all efforts to get the 'client contract' disclosed pre-action?
Almost definitely.

beamerguy

Johnersh wrote: »

From a well known advocacy business...

http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/latest-news/2017/april/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims/

Thanks

"The Letter of Claim

The first stage of the Protocol requires the Creditor to send a much more detailed Letter of Claim than the Letter Before Action which the Practice Direction Pre-Action Conduct currently requires.[3]

Attached to this Letter of Claim, the Creditor must now also attach a series of documents: a statement of account showing interest and administrative charges; an Information Sheet, Reply Form and Financial Statement form (all of which are annexed to the Protocol).[4] The Letter of Claim, plus the documents attached thereto, increase the length of a Letter Before Action (often only one or two sides of A4) to approximately 10 pages"


Do you think that the legals who play around with the scammers
will actually understand this, given their history.

Guess they will now need a bank of printers and a lot more ink

No longer worth chasing a £100 fake charge

11 days to go:)

Umkomaas

20 days to go

To 1st October?

Using my fingers and one big toe, I make that just 11 days.

Have I missed something?

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

To 1st October?

Using my fingers and one big toe, I make that just 11 days.

Have I missed something?

hmmm, your glasses

safarmuk

This however does rather make our policy of issuing:
* LBCs for DPA breaches to PPCs or;
* LBCs to Landowners/Freeholders and Management Agents (in residential cases)
Somewhat more onerous as well ... however overall it is for the best I guess.

As of 1st October do we need to mention this when we refer people to the LBCs that LOC123 wrote for "Hairray"? Indeed do we need to update those templates (and Lynzer's on Pepipoo)?