Help Requested With WS - Court Hearing vs Gladstones & PPM Ltd

The_Deep

Be sure to mention to the Judge the denouncement by MP after MP of this company's MO in the House of Commons yesterday.


http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

They have been reported by an MP to the SRA for involving themselves in this scam, and also their conflict of interest with the IAS and IPC. IMO theyb are on borrowed time.

muleskinner

Just a friendly bump for this in case anyone has any time to give feedback on the last draft of my costs application. I should get this off today really.

The_Deep

Have you yet read my link?

MP after MP stood up and said how unreasonable they thought PPCs' behaviour was, and named two solicitors involved in the scam

I would bring this to the attention of the judge. It is plainly the will of Parliament that this unregulated industry, which preys on the vulnerable, should be controlled.

Asking £100 for a few minutes stayin a lay bye is totally unreasonable. even Reading Borough Council's twice convicted for indecent behaviour parking supremo is not that greedy.

It is time judges aligned themselves with the views of MPs and helped to control these parasites..

muleskinner

The_Deep wrote: »

Have you yet read my link?

MP after MP stood up and said how unreasonable they thought PPCs' behaviour was, and named two solicitors involved in the scam

Yes thanks, I watched it almost in its entirety with a beer over the w/e. It was very entertaining! Still have to watch the last few mins. My MP (Michele Donalan) spoke, though I thought her contribution was one of the worst, particularly as she started it with a quote from the BPA!

I guess it wouldn't hurt to put in a reference to this, particularly the singling out of Gladstones/roboclaiming. The terminology is very general though, what I mean by that is that even though it's conduct that any sane person would consider 'unreasonable' it's not necessarily a contravention of the PD or CPR.

muleskinner

Added:

28. In considering the reasonableness of Claimant's conduct the court should take into account the fact that the practice of 'roboclaiming' and the predatory practices of many private parking companies have recently been denounced in parliament by a huge number of MPs, that legislation (Sir Greg Knight's Parking Bill) is underway to stop precisely the type of practices evidenced by this claim, and that the Claimant's agents, Gladstone Solicitors, were specifically mentioned in parliament as one of the worst offenders in helping to perpetrate such predatory and unreasonable practices.

The_Deep

it's not necessarily a contravention of the PD or CPR.

It is if a judge says it is. Unreasonable behaviour is not defined in the PD, each judge puts their own interpretation on it. However, there is a legal concept of reasonability

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonability

which may be of help.

I would ask the judge "what would TMOTCO think?" and tell him what most of our elected representatives do.,

Loadsofchildren123

Good job muleskinner.


I'd add after para 19, in the R27 section, that this is a claim which should never have been brought and falls squarely within the test of unreasonable behaviour set out in Dammerman (check spelling of that case). Had the C complied with the PD, this would have been obvious to it, given what has now come to light (namely the lack of any authority to operate on the land on which your car was parked). Therefore, the claim has been unreasonably brought and unreasonably pursued and the C should be penalised on costs under the principles set out in Dammermann (not sure how that should be spelt).


Attach a copy of the letters/documents you refer to

muleskinner

Thanks LoC. I have now done this.

Should I attach copies of correspondence that has already been included in my evidence bundle? I don't want to weight down the judge with paper unnecessarily!

Castle

The "Dammermann" case:-
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/269.html

Loadsofchildren123

either refer to the page in your evidence bundle by page/tab number, or attach it to the costs argument. The point is just to make it easy for the judge to find the relevant piece of paper quickly.