At Court Hearing stage with Gladstones and PCM

RM_2007

The old thread is closed so starting a new one.

Old thread with all the info here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5346095

TLDR version - got an NTK back in 2015 for being in a private development, I wasnt the driver but am told that the driver would have only been waiting and not parked, PPC not identified the driver, now at court stage.

My arguments are:

1: The car wasn't on the development at the time specified on the NTK (their own evidence proves it)
2: PPC have not identified the driver and no contract was formed
3: Failed to comply with POFA if they are going for keeper liability
4: Failure to set out clear parking terms

Drafted Witness statement and would appreciate any comments.

Drop box link https://www.dropbox.com/s/k4995d0gj14s7n0/Witness_statement_rm2007_draft.pdf?dl=0

Will copy the paragraphs into a post if that is easier.

Many thanks for all the help guys

System

The WS is meaningless without the evidence of the pics, the site layout, the wording on the signs and the contract - which are all missing.

They can and do say anything and the evidence usually says something else.

You're asking us to dismantle something blindfolded.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

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

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

The old thread is not closed, ooops, sorry! Edited to say maybe you mean your really old one!

Originally Posted by Coupon-mad
OK so re the next ones - the other court claim and the LBC - I would start a new thread (unusual for me to say that but you don't want people confusing it with this one).

I think I have one already for that one - was from a few years ago. I'll start updating that one.

Many thanks for all your advice.

RM_2007

IamEmanresu wrote: »

The WS is meaningless without the evidence of the pics, the site layout, the wording on the signs and the contract - which are all missing.

They can and do say anything and the evidence usually says something else.

You're asking us to dismantle something blindfolded.

Hi IamEmanresu,

NTK below



Uploaded their "contract" and site plan with my annotations here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oedaqk50uc2doui/claimants%20contract%20and%20site%20plan.pdf?dl=0

The sign is here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/48du5wu0ydx2940/IMG_3827.JPG?dl=0

GSV

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Academy+Way,+Dagenham+RM8+2BF/@51.549252,0.1135347,3a,75y,317.98h,99.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ5ddylz2OHwnAb-2-Ljzmg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x47d8a5c92f5eb8db:0x2aa723e521e354da!8m2!3d51.5494681!4d0.1124591

RM_2007

not sure why the image is getting blown up like that but will re-upload as soon as I can.

RM_2007

Updated the WS to include the evidence - still a WIP as I have some more photos to obtain and take the video.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o28y600714twbvx/Witness_statement_draft_for%20review.pdf?dl=0

System

Some of Academy Way is highway and some is not, so you should check that the area the car was parked was private - rather than just accepting it. The sign is not clear. The "penal" element is buried in the small print, dense text and unnecessary wording. It does not meet the standards for clarity set by Beavis or Denning's Red Hand Rule.

Normal PCM crap so it should be a doddle.

RM_2007

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Some of Academy Way is highway and some is not, so you should check that the area the car was parked was private - rather than just accepting it. The sign is not clear. The "penal" element is buried in the small print, dense text and unnecessary wording. It does not meet the standards for clarity set by Beavis or Denning's Red Hand Rule.

Normal PCM crap so it should be a doddle.

Thanks IamEmanresu.

I'll make enquires with the with the local borough regarding the highways

RM_2007

Right so just called the court to check Gladstones had paid the hearing fee and the court system does not show a payment.

The Notice of Allocation stated that they must pay the fee by the 3rd o April so it is way overdue.

I've been asked to email to court to confirm that the fee hasn't been paid and if the case is being struck out.

If it does get struck out, can I claim any of my costs - for time spent preparing?

RM_2007

Still haven't had a reply from the court to confirm if Gladstones have paid the hearing fees - will chase it up on Monday.

However, received a letter in the post from Gladstones stating:


"We act for the claimant.

In accordance with CPR 27.9 our Client hereby gives notice that it will not be attending the hearing on 4th May 2018.

We confirm the court has been informed and that we have asked the Court to decide the claim in our Client's absence based on the evidence submitted.

Yours Sincerely

Gladstones Solicitors"


If I have understood CPR 27.9, as they have given notice, their evidence and statement will be taken into account. However I can still attend and present my case.

Would be grateful if someone could confirm and also confirm if there is anything I need to do as a result of this move by Gladstones.