UK CPM and Gladstones strike again

KeithP

sa1601 wrote: »

Nobody came back and said I was the wrong track.

What do you mean?

How many times do you need to be given advice?

Post #12 above offered good advice - you even thanked it.

Post #22 was a second attempt to point you down the right track.

sa1601 wrote: »

The whole thing feels like a production line.

It is a production line.

sa1601

Exactly! It is a production line and we are on it. I posted the defence and changed in response to advice and feedback and thank everyone who helped.

Redx

sa1601 wrote: »

When you complete it online on the MCOS site directly you don’t have any formatting options and there are separate boxes for the declaration of truth. If this online option is so awful why do they provide it? They take care of all the requirements. I did not submit War and Peace. It allows you 122 lines for the Defence and we used all of them but didn’t have to cut down the revised version I posted here earlier. I followed the advice in post 2 of the newbie thread or missing anything.



Nobody came back and said I was the wrong track. All points of law were in there that applied to this case and I followed all advice given my first draft which was indeed a War and Peace WS! The defence posted earlier (not the first long one) was based on an example you had posted in that thread. I amended the paragraph in which I had cited the cases and replaced with the paragraph you suggested.



I will also email a copy set out as you suggest to the email given here and post too as you suggest if you advise.

in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread it has a link to posts made by BARGEPOLE a couple of years ago that tells you what to do, what not to do and why, it explicitly tells you not to use the online box as it destroys the formatting (which is why he has posted what he did above)


we should not need to tell you, its there and has been there for over 2 years


and if you had read other court claim threads including the examples in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, you would see posts by member KeithP where he tells people what to do and why, including emailing the completed and signed pdf to Northampton CCBC as an attachment, he has posted the info dozens or hundreds of times


nobody is stopping you from doing the research , its all there for the taking , so anyone else that reads this thread will now know what NOT TO DO and what they SHOULD DO

sa1601

An update on this case. Using the information on this site we submitted a Witness Statement that relied on two arguments. 1st was the primacy of the lease and the second was about the signage. The case was heard this morning and UKCPM sent a solicitor along. Gladstones had not sent him a copy of the bundle, so the Judge summarised the arguments for him. The UKCPM case was dismissed on the basis that UK CPM could not impose conditions on owners of car park spaces unless the lease was varied by the landowner to require them to comply with those conditions. The fact that UKCPM had a contract with the management company was irrelevant, as was the fact a permit was displayed albeit faded. The solicitor tried to argue that because she had displayed a permit, she has agreed to the contract. The Judge dealt with that swiftly! We were disappointed that the issue about the signage was not part of the judgement because it wasn't needed - we won on the primacy of lease issue.
To those of you going through similar, it's worth it. As newbies to court, it wasn't as daunting as we had imagined and it was over in less that 30 mins and that was because the judge went through the arguments for the benefit of the UKCPM solicitor. The counterclaim was dismissed because the threshold for harassment is high and getting their letters doesn't count! Fair enough.
The information on this site has been invaluable so thanks to all.

beamerguy

sa1601 wrote: »

An update on this case. Using the information on this site we submitted a Witness Statement that relied on two arguments. 1st was the primacy of the lease and the second was about the signage. The case was heard this morning and UKCPM sent a solicitor along. Gladstones had not sent him a copy of the bundle, so the Judge summarised the arguments for him. The UKCPM case was dismissed on the basis that UK CPM could not impose conditions on owners of car park spaces unless the lease was varied by the landowner to require them to comply with those conditions. The fact that UKCPM had a contract with the management company was irrelevant, as was the fact a permit was displayed albeit faded. The solicitor tried to argue that because she had displayed a permit, she has agreed to the contract. The Judge dealt with that swiftly! We were disappointed that the issue about the signage was not part of the judgement because it wasn't needed - we won on the primacy of lease issue.
To those of you going through similar, it's worth it. As newbies to court, it wasn't as daunting as we had imagined and it was over in less that 30 mins and that was because the judge went through the arguments for the benefit of the UKCPM solicitor. The counterclaim was dismissed because the threshold for harassment is high and getting their letters doesn't count! Fair enough.
The information on this site has been invaluable so thanks to all.

Well done :T

If real solicitors were involved, they would have done some research and advised UKCPM accordingly.

Gladstones are simply a BIG JOKE and that is why they get zapped in court. UKCPM have not yet woken up to the Gladstones stupidity

Did you get your costs ??

sa1601

As we didn't use a solicitor there weren't any costs. My understanding was that time taken to prepare and present the case cannot be claimed for, and given I am semi-retired and didn't lose anything but time away from the garden we don't have a basis for costs! The only loss my son and his partner suffered was missing a couple of hours at work. Most important was that UKCPM must have spent money which they aren't getting back.

Gladstones are a joke and it's a wonder anyone will turn up to court on their behalf. I actually felt quite sorry for him. He introduced himself and asked who we all were. I acted as a McKenzie Friend for my very nervous daughter-in-law and my son was a witness as the leaseholder. The bundle had included his WS and bundle, none of which this chap had been given by Gladstones. We had sent the Witness Statements and bundles in good time by registered post and included a Certificate of Service and proof of postage - all of which were noted by the Judge. He said it was a thorough approach!

What I don't understand is how Gladstones and UKCPM don't know about the primacy of lease issue and still persist with these claims.

Castle

sa1601 wrote: »

What I don't understand is how Gladstones and UKCPM don't know about the primacy of lease issue and still persist with these claims.

Because they think "they can get away with it"!

sa1601

Yes - and what's madding is that they do get away with it My daughter-in-law didn't want to go through with it because she was finding it so stressful and she was scared of going to court. I am sure she is not the only one and many people just give in. It is a real scam operation I feel a letter to my MP coming on. After all, there is only so much gardening I can do1:)

beamerguy

sa1601 wrote: »

What I don't understand is how Gladstones and UKCPM don't know about the primacy of lease issue and still persist with these claims.

They should know but rely on motorists not knowing.
They are a scam through and through.

There is light at the end of tunnel and that is the new government code of practice which will be out soon.

It is designed to kill off rogue parking operators like UKCPM and this forum will play a big part in making that happen.
Once rid of these vermin, the incompetent Gladstones will have nothing to do

Mahone1302

sa1601 wrote: »

What I don't understand is how Gladstones and UKCPM don't know about the primacy of lease issue and still persist with these claims.

Gladstones know all about it as I suspect the PPC's do too. However it works in their favour to continue to push it, because I imagine 90% of the time the tickets are paid long before court by people who feel that they have to pay them. I imagine that the money lost by PPC's in poorly fought cases is nothing in comparison to what they make through the fear they create when they threaten people with court via a firm of "solicitors"