Parking in own space - Gladstoned

[Deleted User]

beamerguy wrote: »

You seem to think there is only one scammer here ... both are ?

I hope Gladstones are reading this as your lease will probably scupper them in court.

Best for them to discontinue as they do

Yes, I'm drafting a letter offering them a settlement (i.e. they pay us) of £250. It would save a lot of hassle all round, but I'm led to believe they are very stupid ….

beamerguy

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Yes, I'm drafting a letter offering them a settlement (i.e. they pay us) of £250. It would save a lot of hassle all round, but I'm led to believe they are very stupid ….

Put it this way, they are not the type of legal I would employ if I wanted to win.

Le_Kirk

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Definitely the last question for today, and apologies for the continued requests: we're citing a recent case identical to ours, in the same block, and where the scammers lost. However, we don't have a copy of the judgement (I think it costs £50), so would that be held against us if we reference this case in the WS without providing a copy? I think we have sufficient detail of the judgement, just not the verbose document. Thanks.

Just a thought, if you cannot get the judgment document (transcript) can you find out the case number from the defendant in your block?

[Deleted User]

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Just a thought, if you cannot get the judgment document (transcript) can you find out the case number from the defendant in your block?

Yes, I do have the case number. Would there be a problem citing it in the WS, even if the transcript was not submitted?

Le_Kirk

If you check out (by searching this forum) any Abuse of Process post, you will see that posters use the case number in defences and WS: -

- Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstone's' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
The Judge stated:-
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process

Just using this as an example.

[Deleted User]

Le_Kirk wrote: »

If you check out (by searching this forum) any Abuse of Process post, you will see that posters use the case number in defences and WS: -
Just using this as an example.

Maybe I'm missing something really obvious here, but how do you carry out a search for a string, e.g. "Abuse of Process", as against a search returning all posts containing any of the three words?


Regardless, thoughts on the following would be appreciated. The case comes up at the end of next week. Last month, as mentioned in an earlier post, there was a virtually identical case (same issue, same location) won by the defendant. We're considering sending a last-minute letter to the scammers stating that if they continue they may be whacked by an 'abuse of process' ruling. As a result, we'll accept £250 from them to call it quits. At this late stage is it worth it, or is it best now just to see it through in court?

DoaM

Advanced search?

[Deleted User]

DoaM wrote: »

Advanced search?

Still doesn't work. What's the delimiter for a string search " ' # * or something else (the double and single quotes don't seem to work)?

Umkomaas

Either 'Abuse Process' or maybe just 'Abuse' should narrow things down by removing 'of' from the search?

[Deleted User]

Umkomaas wrote: »

Either 'Abuse Process' or maybe just 'Abuse' should narrow things down by removing 'of' from the search?

Okay, thanks. I managed to find quite a bit stuff in this board using just "Abuse". However, from reading about the various cases it seems they were mostly about unfair fees being repeatedly claimed by the scammers. I'm not sure whether proceeding with a case almost identical to one they lost earlier would necessarily qualify.


Another point - we've got the WS from Gladstones. Their main thrust is that we didn't demonstrate to them that the property lease exempts us from having to display a parking permit (it says nothing about parking permits). In fact, we didn't supply them with a copy of the lease when they asked for it. Instead, our argument was that the scammer should have already had a copy, to enable him to carry out 'correct and proper' parking management. Might our inflexibility in this mater be held against us by the judge?