CPM Gladstones Court Claim

Coupon-mad

http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2014/08/24/witness-statements-and-complying-with-the-rules-why-witness-statements-can-come-to-grief/

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2015/09/08/the-witness-who-knows-nothing-and-wants-to-be-an-expert-a-review-of-the-cases/


THE WITNESS WHO KNOWS NOTHING AND WANTS TO BE AN EXPERT: A REVIEW OF THE CASES
September 8, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Uncategorized, Witness statements
There are a surprising number of witness statements in which witnesses quite happy give ''evidence'' on matters on which they in fact know nothing. Some will even add to their ''evidence'' by assisting the court with matters of opinion.

An example of this can be seen in JD Wetherspoon PLC -v- Harris [2013] EWHC 1088 (Ch).

THE CASE

The judge refused a defendant's application for summary judgment. He allowed, in large part, an application by the claimant to strike out evidence of a witness on the grounds that it was opinion evidence.

THE JUDGMENT IN RELATION TO THE WITNESS EVIDENCE
''Mr Goldberger, a director of the second to fourth Defendants, has made a witness statement dated 7 February 2013 on behalf of those Defendants. He did not become a director of the second to fourth Defendants until 2003 and had no prior involvement with the matters which are the subject of these proceedings. His witness statement is 52 pages and contains 231 paragraphs. The Claimant has issued an application notice for an order that the contents of the witness statement be struck out apart from paragraphs 1 and 2 and 7 to 11.
The vast majority of Mr Goldberger's witness statement contains a recitation of facts based on the documents, commentary on those documents, argument, submissions and expressions of opinion, particularly on aspects of the commercial property market. In all those respects Mr Goldberger's witness statement is an abuse. The abusive parts should be struck out.

Mr Wolfson submitted that this is a wrong approach to the witness statement and its legitimacy. He submitted that the matter should be approached on the basis that, the second to fourth Defendants having been accused of dishonesty, they should be permitted to present their case as best they can as to why they have done nothing wrong and are not liable to the Claimant. He contended that, in the absence of anyone currently employed by the second to fourth Defendants who has direct knowledge of the events which are the subject of these proceedings, it is entirely appropriate that Mr Goldberger, a director, should give the explanation he has. Mr Wolfson submitted that, in setting out the course of events and making reference to the documents, Mr Goldberger was doing no more than that which would be done on behalf of the second to fourth Defendants in opening their case at trial.

Mr Wolfson also submitted that, in interweaving into Mr Goldberger's recitation of the facts his opinion on matters relating to the property market, Mr Goldberger was doing no more than was envisaged by Master Bowles when, at a hearing on 22 February 2013, the Master refused permission to adduce expert evidence on valuation but acknowledged that such opinion evidence could be adduced in the course of factual evidence.

Mr Wolfson rejected any suggestion that the Claimant would be placed in difficulty by Mr Goldberger's witness statement because it would be difficult for the Claimant’s counsel to decide how much of, and precisely which parts of, the witness statement should be the subject of cross-examination of Mr Goldberg.

I do not accept those submissions of Mr Wolfson.
CPR r.32.4 describes a witness statement as :

''a written statement signed by a person which contains the evidence which that person would be allowed to give orally''.

Mr Goldberger would not be allowed at trial to give oral evidence which merely recites the relevant events, of which he does not have direct knowledge, by reference to documents he has read. Nor would he be permitted at trial to advance arguments and make submissions which might be expected of an advocate rather than a witness of fact. These points are made clear in paragraph 7 of Appendix 9 to the Chancery Guide (7th ed), which is as follows:

''A witness statement should simply cover those issues, but only those issues, on which the party serving the statement wishes that witness to give evidence in chief. Thus it is not, for example, the function of a witness statement to provide a commentary on the documents in the trial bundle, nor to set out quotations from such documents, nor to engage in matters of argument. Witness statements should not deal with other matters merely because they may arise in the course of the trial.''

Nor would Mr Goldberger be permitted to give expert opinion evidence at the trial. A witness of fact may sometimes be able to give opinion evidence as part of his or her account of admissible factual evidence in order to provide a full and coherent explanation and account. That is what, it would appear, Master Bowles recognised when he refused the first Defendant’s application to adduce expert evidence on market practice. It is what the first Defendant has done in his witness statements. Mr Goldberger, however, has expressed his opinions on market practice by way of commentary on facts of which he has no direct knowledge and of which he cannot give direct evidence. In that respect he is purporting to act exactly like an expert witness giving opinion evidence. Permission for such expert evidence has, however, been expressly refused.

I recognise, of course, that these rules as to witness statements and their contents are not rigid statutes. It is conceivable that in particular circumstances they may properly be relaxed in order to achieve the Overriding Objective in CPR r.1 of dealing with cases justly. I can see no good reason, however, why they should not apply to Mr Goldberger's witness statement in the present proceedings.

I indicated at the hearing that, in the circumstances, I would give a limited time to those acting for the second to fourth Defendants to consider whether, in addition to the paragraphs in Mr Goldberger's witness statement conceded by the Claimant to be admissible, there are any other parts of his witness statement which can and should be retained consistently with the principles I have mentioned. If the parties cannot agree, any dispute over such further paragraphs shall be determined by me.''

THIS IS HARDLY A ONE OFF
See the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Smith in Michael Norcross -v- The Estate of Christos Georgallides deceased [2015] EWHC 2405 (Comm).

Mr Dickinson's witness statement extended beyond admissible evidence of fact. He expressed his views about usual accounting practice, and offered his opinion that in some ways AOG had behaved as ''no responsible firm of accountants'' would have done. No permission was sought or given for Mr Dickinson to give expert evidence, and this was not properly included in his witness statement. In any case I do not consider these views useful, and I disregard them.

EVIDENCE NOT BUILT UPON A ROCK
In Rock Nominees v RCO Holdings [2003] EWHC 936 (CH) Smith J observed:-

''80. The only evidence offered by the Petitioner, was that of Andrew Stephen Wilson, who was described as being financial adviser to Carlisle, who also advises other entities in which Carlisle and Lord Ashcroft have an interest. He also stated that he had primary responsibility for the affairs of Kiwi and Gambier.

81. It is not being unfair to Mr Wilson to say that it is about the only clear part of his evidence. Before he actually gave evidence we had the somewhat surprising spectacle of finding something like 75% of the witness statement being struck out, as Mr Potts QC conceded in effect the material there, consisting largely of assertions, expressions of opinion and usurpation of my role, should never have been there in the first place.''

ARGUMENTS AND COMMENTS: KAPUTHING SINGER
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) v. UBS AG [2014] EWHC 2450 (Comm)

In Kaupthing one of the witness statements contained much that was inadmissible and objectionable. In an attempt to prevent the trial being derailed the judge ordered that a redacted statement be filed, limited to admissible evidence. Even that redacted statement contained much information that should not have been there. Needless to say this did not do much for the judge’s view as to the credibility of the witness.

Mr Brazzill's statement was not satisfactory, not least because it contained a great deal of argument and contentious comment on documents (a common problem with statements, despite the important guidance in 32.4.5 of the White Book). It was not only unnecessarily long, but it presented UBS with an unfair dilemma about what should be challenged in cross-examination. I was not willing for him to give evidence in chief by way of confirming the original statement. Accordingly, those acting for KSF prepared an amended version of the statement, which removed a good part of the more offensive contents, and I allowed it to stand as Mr Brazzill's evidence in chief so as not to disrupt the trial further.

I did not consider Mr Brazzill a satisfactory witness: it became clear that he really knew nothing about some matters still described in his statement after it was supposedly revised to omit what was simply his comment.''

Coupon-mad

CrazyM101 wrote: »

I've added all three Jack Chapman signatures in the same pdf and also zoomed in and pasted all on the same page for judges to review easily


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vA0Th8whB8c6YUYQ3EwLouYv5Xy09xxt/view?usp=sharing

Thanks for this, a very useful document for exposing UKCPM 'Jack Chapman' signatures as a facsimile used by Gladstones, who advertised recently for 'statement writers' and have even used that signature on a day when they could not possibly have received the statement or had it signed by UKCPM, due to the timing.

It is very clear the parking firm has little or no input and such WS should be struck out for the improbably identical Jack Chapman signatures, which match down to the last pixel.

You could make a real difference here!

An SRA complaint is already in and due to have an update later this week, so why not URGENTLY email another to the investigating officer (this is based upon and copied from one written by another PPC fighter):

To: report@sra.org.uk


FTAO
David Clare
Investigation Officer
Solicitors Regulation Authority

Dear Mr Clare,

Re: Gladstones Solicitors Limited, Warrington Road, High Legh, Knutsford, WA16 6AA (SRA ID 559050)

I understand that a complaint has been made under your ref POL/1278102-2019, and a current investigation is underway that suggests the firm may have been in breach of the SRA's standards or requirements and that the allegations have been deemed serious enough to warrant further investigation.

I am unconnected to the previous complainant but have been informed about his complaint, where template witness statements have been submitted by this solicitor firm, with identical wording and case law cited which are not only not true witness statements from their client at all, but where it is clear in at last one case, that Mr Chapman could not have signed it.

I too have received a Witness Statement with the same facsimile signature.

The 'witness statement' itself is almost an exact match template for those used by Gladstones in all parking cases they take to court (tens of thousands per year) and the same template is in the public domain hundreds of times on the internet and it is clear it is written by the solicitor firm, not the client.

Moreover, I understand you have already been shown a copy of a job advert where Gladstones were very recently advertising for freelance statement writers, working from home, which clearly indicates that their business model involves churning out template ''witness statements'' which appear to be false instruments with little or no input from any actual witnesses.

I would like to ask that you also consider my case in your investigation. The 'witness' is referencing several case laws with outcomes and it is obvious that it has been written by a law firm and not the claimant. I attach a copy, and a document I have created, which shows three facsimile signatures in the same pdf, for judges to review easily. The earlier dated 'signatures' are those already shown to you in the initial complaint.

However, what concerns me most is that Gladstones is doing this for all UKCPM cases, and it seems likely they do this for other parking firms too, given the amount of robo-claims handled for the industry by this firm.

More generally, Gladstones operate under a conflict of interests, having been well known to have shared Directors with the parking Trade Body, the IPC. Gladstones and the IPC appear to conspire to encourage member parking firms to operate in a cartel-like fashion, adding £60 'damages' to each claim (which they are aware cannot be recovered due to para 4(5) of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012, and paragraphs 6, 10 and 14 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 'grey list' of unfair terms, and indeed the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis Supreme Court case, in which paras 98, 193 and 198 make it clear any costs are already absorbed in a parking charge). The self-serving IPC has recently updated its Code of Practice to stretch the rules to make this added £60 appear allowable and as usual, the wording in the 'witness statement' I received, uses Gladstones' template wording to try to justify it. The unreasonable conduct and conflict of interests of the IPC and Gladstones seems to be an abuse of process, in breach of the SRA's standards and I suspect is unlikely to be something that is news to you.

Most consumers would never stumble across online information showing that the signature is false and the witness statement a regurgitated template written by freelancers for the legal firm. I believe this is rife and quite possibly a pattern tainting all UKCPM claims at least, and maybe all Gladstones' parking claims.

If you require any further information about my case please contact me using this email or my telephone number, which is xxxxx xxxxxx. My case is ongoing and has an imminent court date.

Yours sincerely,


real name and address

CrazyM101

Awesome, thanks for the texts and the links.

I received an email from Gladstones asking if I want to make an offer to settle out of court!

Le_Kirk

hockey2019 wrote: »

Hi first post so not sure if this is the correct way of getting advice and help , if not please can some one redirect .

No, this is not the correct place or method. If you have read the NEWBIE sticky (on first page of the forum third thread down) and still have questions, the correct thing to do is to start your own thread. That way you will get bespoke help.

CrazyM101

Complaint and attachment with JC sigs sent to SRA!

CrazyM101

Hi CM, reading through the CRA (fascinating stuff and has given me ideas for another potential court case!), do you know if the below can apply in my case

5 A term which has the object or effect of requiring that, where the consumer decides
not to conclude or perform the contract, the consumer must pay the trader a
disproportionately high sum in compensation or for services which have not been
supplied

The driver did not display a parking permit so effectively deciding that they did not want to perform the contract and cannot be bound to it

11 A term which has the object or effect of enabling the trader to alter the terms of the
contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract

There is never any mention that the keeper will be charged if the driver fails to pay on their Ts & Cs. They only mention that the driver may be liable for additional charges. There is also no mention of POFA Keeper liability.

12 A term which has the object or effect of permitting the trader to determine the
characteristics of the subject matter of the contract after the consumer has become
bound by it.

Similar to above, they are trying to bind the contract to the keeper when it doesn't specify they would do so in the contract.

Thanks

Hearing on 27th, just putting my skeleton together!

CrazyM101

Bo**&%$s - got email from court saying case has been adjourned and they will write a letter with new hearing date!

Umkomaas

CrazyM101 wrote: »

Bo**&%$s - got email from court saying case has been adjourned and they will write a letter with new hearing date!

Do you know why? Of the court or the Claimant's volition? Call the court and ask the reason.

CrazyM101

Got update from from court just now "case has been stood out"

Guess this means struck out?

How do I chase for my costs to be added as I deffo spent a LOT of time and effort on this and want payback!

Coupon-mad

Not sure they mean struck out.

I think they mean the hearing has been 'stood down' (vacated from the 27th) and postponed until another next available date, like the letter told you, really.