We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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!
Court Report - Staines - Another Gladstones Disaster
bargepole
Posts: 3,238 Forumite
D9GF12E4 – Private Parking Solutions London Ltd -v- Mr H, before District Judge Trigg.
Claimant represented by Mr Offord (agent) and Mr Gazewski (Director of PPS). Defendant represented by Stuart Wolf as Lay Rep.
I had been invited along to observe this hearing by the Ashford Parking Group, who are having ongoing battles with this particular PPC at a car park in Ashford (Middx) town centre.
The Claimant’s WS was the usual template rubbish, including citing Elliott v Loake even though the Defendant had confirmed from day one that he was the driver.
But more seriously, much of their evidence appeared to be forged, or fraudulent. This included:
- A ‘contract’ purporting to be with the leaseholder which had pages and annotations added to it which weren’t there in previous cases
- An ariel photograph purporting to have been taken in 2015, which was identical to one taken in 2017, with all the same vehicles in the same positions
- An assertion that the landowner was one particular company, when in fact it was proven that another company had bought the original company out, and sent a letter stating that PPS did not have any authority to issue and pursue parking charges
- A photo purporting to show the Defendant’s vehicle in the part of the car park patrolled by PPS, when in fact it was in a different area patrolled by Horizon
When we went in to court, DJ Trigg picked up on the fact that the Directions had stated that statements and evidence must be filed by 12 September. The Claimant’s WS, sent by Gladstones, was dated 18 Sept., and received by the Court and Defendant on 21 Sept. This, she said, was a serious and significant failure of protocol, and invited the Claimants to step outside to consider whether they could offer any excuse for this.
After some frantic phone calls (presumably to Gladstones), the best they could come up with was that it needed to be proof read, and amendments made. The Judge was not satisfied with this, observing that the Directions Letter had been sent in July, and they had had ample time to comply with the timescale.
As there was no good reason for late service, the WS would be struck out. This meant that the Claimant had no evidence, and the claim was dismissed.
Mr H is retired, so no loss of earnings costs were applicable, but Mr Wolf did ask for further costs in light of the unreasonable behaviour of the Claimant. The Judge declined to award any, saying that the Claimant had already been sanctioned by the striking out of their evidence, and she wasn’t going to penalise them twice.
This is now the 15th case to reach court from this particular location, all of which have been dismissed for various reasons.
Claimant represented by Mr Offord (agent) and Mr Gazewski (Director of PPS). Defendant represented by Stuart Wolf as Lay Rep.
I had been invited along to observe this hearing by the Ashford Parking Group, who are having ongoing battles with this particular PPC at a car park in Ashford (Middx) town centre.
The Claimant’s WS was the usual template rubbish, including citing Elliott v Loake even though the Defendant had confirmed from day one that he was the driver.
But more seriously, much of their evidence appeared to be forged, or fraudulent. This included:
- A ‘contract’ purporting to be with the leaseholder which had pages and annotations added to it which weren’t there in previous cases
- An ariel photograph purporting to have been taken in 2015, which was identical to one taken in 2017, with all the same vehicles in the same positions
- An assertion that the landowner was one particular company, when in fact it was proven that another company had bought the original company out, and sent a letter stating that PPS did not have any authority to issue and pursue parking charges
- A photo purporting to show the Defendant’s vehicle in the part of the car park patrolled by PPS, when in fact it was in a different area patrolled by Horizon
When we went in to court, DJ Trigg picked up on the fact that the Directions had stated that statements and evidence must be filed by 12 September. The Claimant’s WS, sent by Gladstones, was dated 18 Sept., and received by the Court and Defendant on 21 Sept. This, she said, was a serious and significant failure of protocol, and invited the Claimants to step outside to consider whether they could offer any excuse for this.
After some frantic phone calls (presumably to Gladstones), the best they could come up with was that it needed to be proof read, and amendments made. The Judge was not satisfied with this, observing that the Directions Letter had been sent in July, and they had had ample time to comply with the timescale.
As there was no good reason for late service, the WS would be struck out. This meant that the Claimant had no evidence, and the claim was dismissed.
Mr H is retired, so no loss of earnings costs were applicable, but Mr Wolf did ask for further costs in light of the unreasonable behaviour of the Claimant. The Judge declined to award any, saying that the Claimant had already been sanctioned by the striking out of their evidence, and she wasn’t going to penalise them twice.
This is now the 15th case to reach court from this particular location, all of which have been dismissed for various reasons.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
0
Comments
-
Gladstones "gladstoned" themselves
Why on earth do parking companies use Gladstones ????0 -
This is not the whole story, Popla are now ignoring the fact that PPS had no legal right to be operating on this land, so there will be at least 26 more court cases!!!! There must be a mechanism to set off alarm bells that courts are being abused by this and other parking companies? The BPA are no longer scrutinised, Popla isn't so this needs to be addressed by the courts!! A scandalous waste of Court time and taxpayers money!0
-
The Judge declined to award any, saying that the Claimant had already been sanctioned by the striking out of their evidence, and she wasn’t going to penalise them twice.
She would not be penalising them, she would be compensating the appellant for wasting his time, and perhaps for stress.
If this is reasonable behaviour I am a Law Graduate.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
The Judge declined to award any, saying that the Claimant had already been sanctioned by the striking out of their evidence, and she wasn’t going to penalise them twice.
She would not be penalising them, she would be compensating the appellant for wasting his time, and perhaps for stress.
If this is reasonable behaviour I am a Law Graduate.
I knew it wouldn't take you long to jump on this thread, Mr D.
I think what we should do, is the next time we have a case at Reading County Court, we'll send you all the paperwork, and you can go along as the Defendant's Lay Rep.
Then you can report back on here, and show us how much you got the Judge to award the Defendant for unreasonable behaviour costs.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
Glad to Mr C.
If I am I not at my residence in Spain.
If I am not in too much pain, (dodgy hip doncha know),
If I am not refurbishing one of my properties,
or in Switzerland visiting my money.
I am no stranger to Reading CC, having won two cases there, (rent arrears and RTA). I have also written a few hundred witness statements for Immigration Courts.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Shame it was dismissed before it got started, would have loved to hear what the judge thought about all the lies in their ws/ evidence... And whether it would have led to them being reported to the CPS for contempt of court and/or perverting the course of justice.0
-
Shame it was dismissed before it got started, would have loved to hear what the judge thought about all the lies in their ws/ evidence... And whether it would have led to them being reported to the CPS for contempt of court and/or perverting the course of justice.
We have to be patient ...... with the Gladstones woeful business
model, it is only a matter of time0 -
Surely a criminal offence was committed in submitting false/forged evidence, the contract and the aerial photograph. Why did the judge not throw the book at Gladstones?
That, coupled with the failure to award costs leads me to think that she is incompetent.
If I had been the appellant I would be strenuously seeking her dismissal.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Could the judge have allowed it, (the PPC wanted the judge to see it)?You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards