Gladstone Claim Form with a twist

coynek

I'm thinking in terms or revenge, not this court case

coynek

So Gladstones have sent me a letter saying they wish to proceed and be heard on paper, I assume I just reply to the directions questionnaire refusing that when it arrives?

I have spoken to my neighbour and he has already had a few cases and forwarded an email from his solicitor, they didn't turn up for one and the second they could not prove they had authority from the freeholder of the land (Ringleys contract provided with no evidence who they are which is just a managing agent)
this is the interesting part:
The legal representative for UKCPM did her best, but was always fighting a losing battle. The Court dismissed the claim and this time they were prepared to award costs even though it was a small claim in view of their unreasonable behaviour in continuing the claim after the previous claim had been dismissed without submitting any new evidence. (awarding £2000 in costs)
I'm guessing as I'm representing myself there would be no costs just the usual £97
I hope I get the same judge

beamerguy

coynek wrote: »

So Gladstones have sent me a letter saying they wish to proceed and be heard on paper, I assume I just reply to the directions questionnaire refusing that when it arrives?

Gladstones are as daft as someone using a brush to paint
the inside of a sewer white ???

Just the usual rubbish expected from Gladstones nowadays,
they have lost the plot

KeithP

coynek wrote: »

So Gladstones have sent me a letter saying they wish to proceed and be heard on paper, I assume I just reply to the directions questionnaire refusing that when it arrives?

You didn't need to ask that question.
The answer is already spelt out in the link to Bargepole's 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

coynek wrote: »

I'm guessing as I'm representing myself there would be no costs just the usual £97
I hope I get the same judge

Again, no need to do that guessing.

Look at some of the Costs Schedules linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

If you don't claim all your other costs, then you definitely won't be awarded them even if the Claimant's behaviour is deemed unreasonable.

[Deleted User]

On post #28 of Duns89's thread, you will find a witness statement which I drafted recently for someone defending a residential case on another forum.


Obviously, as there will be differences between your own case and their case, you will not simply be able to cut and paste it into your own witness statement when the time comes; however, if you give it a good read, it will acquaint with some of the legal principles and issues which make it extremely difficult for parking operators to succeed in residential allocated bay situations.

coynek

would it be possible to link it as I am struggling to find the thread you are referring to.

I have found a useful clause in my lease:
it is agreed by the landlord and Tenant that, for the purposes of the contracts (rights if third parties)act(1999) this agreement is not intended to and does not give rights to any third parties to enforce any condition contained in it.
So I interpret that as even if there was a reference to a permit scheme UKCPM certainly couldn't enforce it. To me that seems black and white.
Am I right?
cheers guys

KeithP

coynek wrote: »

would it be possible to link it as I am struggling to find the thread you are referring to.

Duns89 has only started two threads and one of those is obviously a mistake.

Easy enough to find using Advance Search and find threads by Duns89.

[Deleted User]

See if this takes you to the third page of Duns89's thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5731295/gladstone-lbc-ukcpm&page=2&highlight=




The clause which you found in your lease about the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 is mentioned in the witness statement where it says:-


"23. In any event, the Claimant is unable to enforce the terms of my lease because my lease does not expressly provide that the Claimant may do so and because my lease contains no clause that "purports to confer a benefit" on the Claimant, which would allow the Claimant to enforce the lease terms pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. *** The rule of "privity of contract" under which a person can only enforce a contract if he is a party to it does, therefore, apply."

Where I have the three asterisks, you can insert "In fact, my lease expressly states "it is agreed by the Landlord and Tenant that, for the purposes of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 this agreement is not intended to and does not give rights to any third parties to enforce any condition contained in it".


Well spotted!

coynek

I have a Court date set for July and a few months ago found out from my Housing Association that there is no contract between UKCPM and the Managing Agent who appointed them, it was referred to as a "ghost contract" is this grounds for it to be thrown out before the Court date?
Thanks

Umkomaas

is this grounds for it to be thrown out before the Court date?

Thrown out by who?