Gladstones LBC received

Coupon-mad

Search the NEWBIES thread (CONTROL & F) for the word WITNESS and you can do this!

cornel1311

Morning everyone,

I have searched for the e-mail addresses of Gladstones and Horizon, so I can send them my WS. I have found the following:
Gladstones: leanne@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk
Horizon: contact@horizonparking.co.uk

I am really sceptical about these, but I hope they are right.

I also want to head out later to court to hand in the paper WS. Can anyone confirm if I am accurate with the WS deadline? My case is on the 19th of February, when should the deadline for handing in the WS be?

Thank you in advance.

//edit: I have rung the court and they have confirmed the deadline as being today. I have been told I should put the documents in their drop-off point. I was wondering, if I do that, I will probably have no proof of delivery?

cornel1311

It is written in the newbies' thread I should include a copy of the Beavis case, but it has 123 pages, is that right?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

Also, I am using Elliot vs Loake but I cannot find the transcripts online, anyone has any source?
http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Elliott%20v%20Loake%20%5B1983%5D%20Crim%20LR%2036.pdf

I do not think this is it, right?

cornel1311

So I have sent my WS to the Claimant and personally delivered it to the court on the 5th which according to the staff there, 5th was the deadline for the WS.

Today I have received from the claimant a "Supplemental WS" which basically argues every point of my WS. Do you think I stand any chance in court?

nosferatu1001

Yes
I bet it argues poorly, or disingenuousyly
Its also after the date so you can ask that it is struck out, especially if the author isnt htere. EHich they wont be

Go through it
Read it arefully
Any errors? Lies?

cornel1311

Hello guys,

Case dismissed! The Judge ruled in my favour due to the ambiguity of the signs. The parking had 5 different signs stating different things. Also, he agreed that the zone I was parked in had no signs at all and was not my responsibility to find them.

Another thing was that he did not like at all the fact that the claimant has used Elliot vs Loake. He stated that he does not understand why so many claimants use that case in civil matters.

I want to thank you guys for your time, I would not have won without your help!

Finally, what should I do now? Should I receive anything from the court?

Umkomaas

Should I receive anything from the court?

You will get a confirmation of the judgment. Little more than a one line entry on a court-stamped form. You don't get a case transcript.

Did the PPC/Gladstones field anyone on the day?

Did you have your costs awarded to you by the Judge?

Well done, by the way, on an excellent win.

In case Coupon-mad misses this - Another one bites the dust.

cornel1311

Did the PPC/Gladstones field anyone on the day?

Yes, they sent a solicitor, but he was poorly prepared.

Did you have your costs awarded to you by the Judge?

To be honest, I did not ask for any costs. I only wanted the matter dismissed.

Well done, by the way, on an excellent win.

Thank you! :j

beamerguy

cornel1311 wrote: »

Hello guys,

Case dismissed! The Judge ruled in my favour due to the ambiguity of the signs. The parking had 5 different signs stating different things. Also, he agreed that the zone I was parked in had no signs at all and was not my responsibility to find them.

Another thing was that he did not like at all the fact that the claimant has used Elliot vs Loake. He stated that he does not understand why so many claimants use that case in civil matters.

I want to thank you guys for your time, I would not have won without your help!

Finally, what should I do now? Should I receive anything from the court?

Well done :T

HORIZON .. GLADSTONED BY GLADSTONES

I liked this .....
"Another thing was that he did not like at all the fact that the claimant has used Elliot vs Loake. He stated that he does not understand why so many claimants use that case in civil matters"

Dear Judge,

It's because these people are scammers who have little else to say apart from fabrication, wishful thinking and sheer ignorance

What a waste of space are the incompetent Gladstones

onlyfoolsandparking

beamerguy wrote: »

Well done :T

HORIZON .. GLADSTONED BY GLADSTONES

I liked this .....
"Another thing was that he did not like at all the fact that the claimant has used Elliot vs Loake. He stated that he does not understand why so many claimants use that case in civil matters"

Dear Judge,

It's because these people are scammers who have little else to say apart from fabrication, wishful thinking and sheer ignorance

What a waste of space are the incompetent Gladstones

ooohhh your so cynical Beamer:D where does it all come from


4 PCN,s case DISMISSED!!!!!! hahahahahaha