Gladstones Solicitors - letter before court

Loadsofchildren123

You could ask the court to stay the claim until they comply with their obligations under the new Protocol

Umkomaas

I also asked for the telephone recordings between myself and their client link parking ltd. As they were aggressive on the phone to me.

The very reason we tell newbies never to phone a PPC or a debt collector. They are trying to drag money from you and you are trying to stop them - did you really expect them to be ‘nice’?

Would you expect someone mugging you of your wallet in a backstreet to say ‘Please’?

Draigcymraeg

Trust me, I wish I did more research and wasn't so naïve. I only managed to stumble across these forums due to a recommendation off a work colleague. I can say I am glad they recommended it, As I have learnt valuable information from the kindness of others on these forums, and I look forward to reading the links provided to myself. So I can wise up toward these companies.

Draigcymraeg

Am I able to get suggestions or corrections on this guys?

Thank you.






To whom it may concern.


I would like a response to the request I made for the relevant documents under the new Protocol for Debt Claims, paragraph 5.2. I would like to amend my request to also include the following;

• The terms of the contract you claim I entered into.
• A plan showing the site, where signs were displayed and where my car was parked.
• The contract under which your client claim rights to operate on the land, recover parking charges and issue proceedings in their own name.
• Proof of postage of all letters sent.

If you issue proceedings without doing so and giving myself a chance to consider the matter further and to respond substantively, I will apply for an immediate stay of the proceedings under paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (which continues to apply, as set out in 7.2 of the new Protocol).



Many Thanks

Loadsofchildren123

Perfect. But edit your post above to remove your name!
Add that you require a response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.

The_Deep

The PPCs and their solicitors seem to be having a problem in complying with the new regulations. If solicitors do not comply, should we not be flooding the SRA with complaints, they can only ignore our concerns so many times.

Draigcymraeg

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Perfect. But edit your post above to remove your name!
Add that you require a response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.

Thank you! have added it and forward it onto them. under the protocol, if they do not reply within 30 days. what course of action could I take then?


Cheers

nosferatu1001

You could complain to the SRA, as the deep mentioned.

Loadsofchildren123

SRA not very relevant here. CEL use WH for the LBC but then take it back in house.
You could complain about WH's non compliant LBC but any lack of response to questions/requested documents is then back in CEL's hands so not an SRA matter.

If they issue proceedings having failed to reply you apply for an immediate stay of the proceedings and an order that they comply, under para 15(b) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, which still applies as per para 7.2 of the new Protocol. You produce a copy of the correspondence to show their wilful breach of their obligations and that they are prematurely issuing claims to bully people like you into paying a debt they have not made any effort to show is due. The pre-action obligations apply to ALL litigants, yet CEL (along with all other PPCs) think they are immune. As a commercial litigant one might argue (as Sassii did and won) that they have a higher duty than Joe Public to comply.

I've made these arguments in a precedent costs argument which is on this forum somewhere on a Dropbox link. When I'm in work I will repost it here. C-M has probably got the link on the Newbies thread as well. The document contains other arguments which don't apply to you at this stage, but it sets out all the reported case law I could find on failures to comply with pre-action obligations and the courts' powers to impose sanctions.

The_Deep

SRA not very relevant here. CEL use WH ...

Too much detail.

Relevant or not, it is all grist for the mill, complaints to the SRA should be applauded not discouraged.

You seem to forget LOC that this is a small claim, people are encouraged to act without legal representation. Judges should make allowances for a lack of knowledge of the processes by doctors, dentists, diplomats, and draymen, and guide them, especially when the claimant is represented by a lawyer.

In fact, hiring a lawyer for a £100 claim should be discouraged.

If we try and turn everyone who gets a PCN into a barrack room lawyer, judges will expect us all to do everything by the book. This imo is strongly to be discouraged.

Let us have hundreds, nay thousands, of complaints to the SRA where low rent solicitors are involved, even when they are only acting as debt collectors.