County Court Claim - Gladstones

The_Deep

Why not ask them?

Umkomaas

GLADSTONES EMAIL ADDRESSES

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73894406&postcount=61

This contains 3 options, it's a bit old now, and, from memory there may be only one of them working. Send your email to all 3 and see what happens.

beanparking

Thank you so much, guys! WS submitted, sent to Ballstones and dropped into the courts. Will keep you updated!

Furrydog1313

The litigation email address no longer works, however the enquiries one does and a receipt email is sent back.

beanparking

Hi guys,
I have my appearance tomorrow. I'm a little nervous. Is there any last minute advice you can give me? I know I should dress smart, is there anything else I need to do or bring? Thank you.

KeithP

This short video may help:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

beanparking

Thank you. One more thing: my hearing is in just over an hour. If anyone can confirm this is correct: by not complying with POFA Schedule 4 and not getting the notice to keeper out in time, it can no longer be presumed the keeper is the driver.

Is there any more I need to add? Does this no longer come under POFA and hence different rules apply? Thanks.

Umkomaas

It can never be presumed that the keeper was the driver, PoFA or no PoFA. All PoFA does, providing all its exact requirements are met, is allow the transfer of liability for the parking charge, regardless of whether the RK was the driver or not.

In the extreme, the RK could provably be abroad on holiday at the time of the parking event, but his car was used by someone else in his absence abroad. If the RK doesn't know (or not prepared to divulge) the identity of the driver, and the PPC meets every condition of PoFA, the RK becomes liable in law for the parking charge.

beanparking

I won! Exhilarating, wow!

Gallstones didn't turn up. The judge didn't care much for the notice to keeper argument, but agreed that the bays were not clearly marked. Case dismissed.

Note for future cases, the Judge objected to the costs being down to 'unreasonable' behaviour, and so only agreed to pay my lost wages, not my expenses.

Umkomaas

Excellent win, well done.

Note for future cases, the Judge objected to the costs being down to 'unreasonable' behaviour, and so only agreed to pay my lost wages, not my expenses.

We know that there is a very 'high bar' for obtaining costs for 'unreasonable behaviour' and it's not often we see costs being awarded for much more than loss of earnings/annual leave, travel costs to the hearing and parking charges on the day.

Another one bites the dust.

UKCPM, you've been Gladstoned..... again!