Excel parking charge notice

dufflers

I've just read someone else's thread about this point:
20.That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated..

where it was suggested that they attach an image of the ruling, could someone please help me with locating a copy of this? I've searched the forum but can't find it, is there a link i could use?

Le_Kirk

Try this link.

dufflers

Amazing thank you

Le_Kirk

dufflers wrote: »

Amazing thank you

We aim to please!

dufflers

Ok so this was recently posted on another thread,

bargepole wrote: »

Claim Nos. E9GF9M7K and E4GF8M1R, UKCPM -v- Mrs A, before Deputy District Judge Chohan at High Wycombe.

Claimant represented by Mr Cookson (Elms Legal).

The Defendant had only received the Claimant's WS and evidence by email, 24 hours before the hearing.

Once the introductions were done, I made my preliminary submissions that the C’s WS had been served unreasonably late, with no application for relief from sanctions, and secondly, it was obvious that Mr Chapman had not signed the statement, but that Gladstones had electronically copied his signature from another document. I handed up to the Judge a copy of the WS from a previous case for comparison, and a copy of my complaint to the SRA about Gladstones.

The Judge agreed that, as the C had legal representation, the late service was inexcusable. He said that he used to be a police officer before he became a solicitor, and was well used to spotting forgeries. He agreed that the two signatures were absolutely identical, and it was impossible that Mr Chapman had signed the statement.

Mr Cookson tried to argue for an adjournment, but the DDJ was having none of it.

He therefore struck out both conjoined claims.

He also agreed that the two factors of late service, and a defective WS, crossed the threshold of unreasonable behaviour, and awarded Mrs A her full costs in the sum of £331.80, which he said was a very reasonable figure.

Mr Cookson asked for leave to appeal, which the DDJ refused as there was no merit in his grounds.

He said that he would leave it to the SRA to deal with Gladstones, but that he sees a lot of parking cases, and will be on the lookout for this sort of thing in future.

I've been given a WS with a contract statement of authority from the leaseholder (on behalf of the landowner), and there are 2 sheets included with an identical, photocopied signature, date and name. They don't have any contract from the landowner in the WS so this is their only proof

Could this argument have any traction if I explained the same? Or would it only apply to a statement of truth?

dufflers

Oh and the claim form they sent me only has SRS typed not signed at the bottom, should that be signed as well or because it's a copy should i not expect it at this point?

Coupon-mad

there are 2 sheets included with an identical, photocopied signature, date and name.

You mean 2 separate sheets with facsimile signatures from the leaseholder?

Who is the leaseholder and who is the landowner?

dufflers

I'm in work so i cant access dropbox to show you, but yes there are 2 forms, a contract statement of authority, and a schedule (with all the local car parks listed that they run), both these forms have a signature, name and date, handwritten and COMPLETELY identical, so facsimile.

These are for the leaseholder, DT Civils LTD
The landowner i found out with a registry search a few weeks back, CODA SA1 LLP, but there's no actual contract in their WS and they make no mention of this company

Coupon-mad

dufflers wrote: »

Oh and the claim form they sent me only has SRS typed not signed at the bottom, should that be signed as well or because it's a copy should i not expect it at this point?

That is OK for a claim filed electronically, as this was, on MCOL.

These are for the leaseholder, DT Civils LTD
The landowner i found out with a registry search a few weeks back, CODA SA1 LLP, but there's no actual contract in their WS and they make no mention of this company

Did the LR results show DT Civils LTD as a leaseholder then?

dufflers

I printed off the LR copy and I can't see anything about the leaseholder, only landowner/proprieter and the lender