Letter before claim from Gladstones Solicitors

raddoc

The hearing is vacated due to Covid 19. Gladstones have again asked for hearing to be heard on papers on form N159 (attached). Presumably I should decline this and the offer of telephone hearing. Will I be seen as the uncooperative party at a subsequent live hearing given the "District Judge proposes to dispose of the claim without a hearing, on papers alone" ? 

raddoc

I have only received form N159 today by email from Gladstones indicating the hearing won't be going ahead. Haven't actually had any communication from the court yet - may be delayed in the post I guess.

Coupon-mad

Will I be seen as the uncooperative party at a subsequent live hearing given the "District Judge proposes to dispose of the claim without a hearing, on papers alone" ? 

Nope, the words 'proposed that' is standard blurb.  They haven't looked hard at the case and they haven't singled your case out and the court will not look unfavourably on you, if you do as we advise.

Use the wording I have posted in the Telephone Hearings thread for this exact scenario, which states very reasonably why a victim of a parking firm/Gladstones robo-claim is hugely disadvantaged by not having their voice heard to expose the errors and legal irrelevancies in the third party template 'witness statement'.

I am very relieved to hear you already filed & served the WS and evidence and the Southampton Approved Judgment but as the Telephone Hearings thread tells you, some courts are not going to have ANY access to the case file wcih means the whole lot, and the defence, has to be re-sent electronically to some courts. 

Bargepole posted a list of courts (and what they are each able to access) in post #10 of that thread, and I posted a draft email and Draft Order for people in your position to use.

Examples of where this tactic has worked already to get discontinuances, are threads by @gbbe and @Staatsgrenze so read what they used at this very stage to avoid any hearing at all and how to explain why a hearing on the papers is not acceptable.

If you are a NHS keyworker or have young children at home who need constant supervision then read the thread by @Littlewadie where I wrote a response for her to send about why she doesn't want a remote hearing or for the case to proceed without her voice being heard.  

Be proactive and robust.  All of this can be adapted just by reading the Telephone Hearings thread then read the examples shown in the 3 I flagged up.  Show us your drafts and tell us whether yours court is one that already has the defence/previously filed papers 'case file' (as per bargepole's list he posted) because you may have to append a shedload of stuff, if not.

And some courts are ordering Gladstones to collate the bundles and to arrange conference calls.  Read it all, as that scenario would mean you have to send the lot to Gladstones, who (we are pleased to report) are not coping with that burden very well.

I have only received form N159 today by email from Gladstones indicating the hearing won't be going ahead. Haven't actually had any communication from the court yet - may be delayed in the post I guess.

Doesn't matter, but are you SURE Gs are not just trying to 'suggest' this 'might' be the case, and in fact the court has NOT ordered it? 

Either way, your response is the same:

- covering email
- draft order (Word doc so the Judge can use/edit it and strike the case out!)
- summary costs assessment (signed) PDF
- WS and defence if the court is one where the Judge won't have the case file
- your entire bundle you already submitted, but all by email now. 
Compressed PDF.

raddoc

Coupon-mad said

I have only received form N159 today by email from Gladstones indicating the hearing won't be going ahead. Haven't actually had any communication from the court yet - may be delayed in the post I guess.

Doesn't matter, but are you SURE Gs are not just trying to 'suggest' this 'might' be the case, and in fact the court has NOT ordered it? 

The General Form of Judgement or order does look like it is from the court - it is dated 28th April so probably just held up with royal mail. I didn't attach first page in the post above. 
Is the court fee of £255 for insisting on a face to face hearing only payable if your reasons for asking for one are not deemed vaild by the court ? 

Many thanks for the advice in the post above.

Coupon-mad

Is the court fee of £255 for insisting on a face to face hearing only payable if your reasons for asking for one are not deemed vaild by the court ? 

Yes - that fee is for a formal application to adjourn which is not what you are doing. 

The wording to use is all over the forum today...on half a dozen threads, and spelt out with templates in the Telephone Hearings thread, page 10.

Johnersh

Apologies if this has been covered before, but I just don't get this part of the claimant's witness evidence:

On the day vehicle registration number QQ was observed to be parked and unattended at the Site. The photographic evidence shows that the vehicle was parked  and unattended when the Defendant exited the Site and therefore no parking allowed. The vehicle is therefore parked in clear contravention of the terms and conditions applicable at the Site.

I)  As this is not a warden controlled site a PCN was not affixed to the screen at the time.

1. How can a photo of a car show where the driver is?

2. If the driver was observed to leave, who observed it? The claimant gives no positive evidence from that individual - an issue which appears central to their case. 

3. They do say there is no parking attendant, so arguably no-one was there to observe it. (there may be an issue with this point if you have conceded it) 

4. The witness evidence is generic and consists wholly of legal argument and commentary on the pleading - see the jd wetherspoon case.

As to the telephone hearing, they can be harder, but it is for the claimant to stump up the fees for Kidatu for the call and recording and the bundle. 

Umkomaas

Johnersh said:

Apologies if this has been covered before, but I just don't get this part of the claimant's witness evidence:

On the day vehicle registration number QQ was observed to be parked and unattended at the Site. The photographic evidence shows that the vehicle was parked  and unattended when the Defendant exited the Site and therefore no parking allowed. The vehicle is therefore parked in clear contravention of the terms and conditions applicable at the Site.

I)  As this is not a warden controlled site a PCN was not affixed to the screen at the time.

1. How can a photo of a car show where the driver is?

2. If the driver was observed to leave, who observed it? The claimant gives no positive evidence from that individual - an issue which appears central to their case. 

3. They do say there is no parking attendant, so arguably no-one was there to observe it. (there may be an issue with this point if you have conceded it) 

4. The witness evidence is generic and consists wholly of legal argument and commentary on the pleading - see the jd wetherspoon case.

As to the telephone hearing, they can be harder, but it is for the claimant to stump up the fees for Kidatu for the call and recording and the bundle. 

Are you able to provide your bona fides as your Username is only marginally different to a high-volume poster, fully qualified lawyer and respected contributor @johnnersh. 

Coupon-mad

I was wondering this too.  We know the old johnersh is no longer a registered user...

Johnersh

Ahem. Not marginally different, the same: (You just spelt Johnersh wrong)! 

Yep - I had a slight issue with the new forum and the fact that they'd only issue new passwords to an email account I had to close once it was hacked. A policy they said was to ensure the protection of my personal data. 

I did begin arguing the breach of GDPR, but frankly ran out of time/patience with my other work commitments. A shame really, given the goodwill built up. 

 I was moved to come back to the site today after legal twitter began circulating *that* county court judgment....So, relaunched, same username, same user icon.

Happy to take it offline if you wanted to liaise further (this isn't my thread, after all)! 

Ralph-y

welcome back

Ralph