Court Report - Staines - Another Gladstones Disaster

phillw

The court probably didn't want the hassle. You could make a complaint to the police.

Half_way

If there's no landowner authority, then isn't it a clear batch of the data protection act, as the parking company had no just cause to access, retain and processes data of registered keepers from the dvla?
certainly worth a full complaint to the DVLA, as well as looking into the possibility of action against the PPC/gladstones and even the dvla for a DPA breach

Lamilad

certainly worth a full complaint to the DVLA

Agree I think if proof of the forged evidence was sent to the DVLA and BPA with the local MP, SRA, ICO and (probably) trading standards copied in then something would have to be done.

I'd also be letting the local newspaper and that guy at the Daily Mail aware for added emphasis.

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

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 claim to know a lot about law, then demonstrate that you clearly don't, with posts like this.

There is no 'appellant', this wasn't an appeal hearing, it was a first instance case with a Claimant v a Defendant.

Secondly, a District Judge in a County Court does not have jurisdiction to make rulings on, or sanctions for, criminal offences. If evidence is found to be false, the Judge may make a finding of Contempt of Court.

Thirdly, she stated at the outset that she hadn't read the Claimant's WS, due to the late filing. The claim was dismissed on procedural grounds, and none of the substantive issues were considered, or ruled upon. Your suggestion of incompetence is, therefore, completely misinformed.

Fourthly, the WS was signed by the Director of PPS (although most of the wording was from a Gladstones template), so Gladstones weren't a party to the case, and could only have been sanctioned by a non-party costs order (CPR 46), but as no order for costs was made, this didn't apply.

I suggest you might want to bone up on legal terminology, court procedures, and the Civil Procedure Rules before posting misleading and inaccurate sweeping assertions on this board.

Or just pop off to Zurich to count your gold bars ...

The_Deep

You claim to know a lot about law,

Not really, I spent five years in the FO Legal Department helping to draft Double Taxation Agreements, Air Services Agreements, Law of the Sea, Space, Antarctic etc. None of the really sexy stuff like parking fines.

Thank you for correcting me on the minutiae of the various terminologies, but I dispute your use of the word "assertions", most of my posts ask questions or are opinions, just as was the one to which you seem to have taken exception. I give very little direct advice.