UKCPM with their dodgy legals .. GLADSTONES

beamerguy

Court report. UK CPM lose on POFA and signage
Case No. D6GF60EJ !!!8211; UK C
PM -v- Mrs H !!!8211; Before Deputy District Judge Bruce. Chatham.

UKCPM with their dodgy legals .. GLADSTONES

THE PRANKSTER SAYS.....
It is sad that the incompetent bunch of solicitors holed up in the golf course at Gladstones Solicitors are allowed to keep churning out these bogus claims. Although they have totally lost all credibility, they work on the premise that either people are scared by their letters, or do not know the true legal reasons why their claims are utterly flawed, and so they make their money from people who are bullied into paying up or who fail the court procedures.


Do UKCPM have some sort of a silly contract with Gladstones
as part of the scam IPC/IAS ???

All we can say UKCPM ...... YOU ARE COMPLETE IDIOTS

READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/court-report-uk-cpm-lose-on-pofa-and.html

Lamilad

UKCPM are extremely litigious at the moment but putting little or no effort into fighting their cases in court.

I attended one of their cases at Manchester this morning. I was just there to observe but I did have a quick chat with the defendant before she went in.

Unfortunately she was not aware of this forum or any other online resource where she could have found reliable advice. As such she had submitted no witness statement or evidence. And the, CAB assisted, defence she had previously filed was just awful. She had even admitted part of the claim, thanks to amazing advice from the CAB [you guys rock]

Gladstone's must have been so confident of an easy victory that they didn't even bother to send an advocate. They had written and asked the court to hear their case in their absence, as per 27.9.

In the few mins I had with the defd I told her to focus on the signage which was tiny, illegible and positioned at knee height. It also said "no unauthorised parking" therefore offered no contract to any motorist. More notably it was overshadowed by a giant banner (probably an old parking sign) which stated "Secure Parking" and a phone number.

DDJ Brown was a friendly likable chap. He guided her through her, rather hapless, presentation of her case. You could see he was willing her to say something against the claim which he could use. She eventually got to signage and got across some of the points i'd mentioned to her. He quickly scribbled some notes down and smiled at her.

Re her partial admission, he said he was stuck with this as she had admitted she owed £60. She replied that she had admitted that out of fear, and in the hope they would not pursue court. He said he would deal with it in his judgement which he then read out.

He accepted the defd had not seen the sign and that it was up to the claimant to prove the signs were clear and there was enough of them to ensure visitors would know they were entering into a contract. He said the C had not discharged that burden.

Of the partial admission, he said the defd could withdraw this pursuant to CPR 14 and he felt to do so would not prejudice the C. The claim was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

As she was getting ready to leave I leant over and told her to ask for costs, which she did but didn't have a clue what she was asking for so got nothing.

An, interesting case where the defd needed, and got, a lot of leeway from a Judge who is clearly aware of the parking scam.

Coupon-mad

Well done Lamilad and Manchester Judges!

And well done to bargepole!

:T

waamo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well done Lamilad and Manchester Judges!

And well done to bargepole!

:T

And a very big not well done to the CAB. Muppets.

Coupon-mad

Terrible advice from the CAB, yes.

The CAB should hang their heads in shame at how they fail the UK public as regards PPC scams.

trisontana

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Terrible advice from the CAB, yes.

The CAB should hang their heads in shame at how they fail the UK public as regards PPC scams.

What makes it worse is that the CAB were very good when fighting "civil recovery" cases brought against alleged shop-lifters where the amounts claimed by the stores bore no relation to the amount supposedly stolen. This from a 2014 article:-

The Commissions had recognised - as I had been arguing since mid-2009 that bombarding those accused (but not necessarily guilty) of shoplifting with legalistically-worded letters demanding money as "compensation" for the cost of dealing with the incident, and threatening civil court action (and associated extra costs) if the money is not paid promptly, has little if anything to do with combating the unquestionably serious problem of shoplifting. It is, of course, about making money for the civil recovery agents, who cream off up to 40 percent of any money paid. And, like many of the worst aspects of life in modern Britain, it is an import from the United States, where it is very big business indeed and is known as "dunning".

http://www.thejusticegap.com/2014/08/end-road-civil-recovery/

Looks familiar regarding PPC cases?

Lamilad

And a very big not well done to the CAB. Muppets.

Couldn't agree more. We've always known they're rubbish at parking cases but they were particularly shocking in this case.

They had told the D to ignore all pre action correspondence as "according to Martin Lewis, private parking tickets are not legally enforceable" :wall:

The defence sounded like it had been written by a primary school student.

The_Deep

The Defendant did not take any time off work so there was no order as to costs.

So, did she not have to get to court, park, spend time dealing with this, did she not have to pay the legal chap, (Maidenhead to Chatham and back is some hop). I'll venture this little scam cost her at least £200.

Le_Kirk

Maybe CAB advisers should be advised to read this forum as part of their training.

fisherjim

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Maybe CAB advisers should be advised to read this forum as part of their training.

Assuming they can read!

nosferatu1001

They just dont really have time. They cover a huge breadth of issues, and like the government fell for the BPA as being "trustworthy", and not the complete boys club they obviously are (and would be, when you realise theyre a trade assoc and so have no interest other than promoting their own members interests)