Letter before claim from Gladstones

Redx

Looks good to me ��

beamerguy

You have got the ABUSE OF PROCESS in place

Wait to see what others say because Jonnersh on here has has stated a very valid point. Like you, Gladstones must sign the statement and they sign as a "statement of truth"

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75929156#Comment_75929156

read the Jonnersh post on this thread # 36 regarding
"statement of truth"

Le_Kirk

Agreed.MMMMMMM

Joey_Santiago

Sorry, I've read the posts but don't really understand. Gladstones sign my statement as well? How does this relate to 'conduct likely to pervert the course of justice'?

KeithP

Joey_Santiago wrote: »

Sorry, I've read the posts but don't really understand. Gladstones sign my statement as well? How does this relate to 'conduct likely to pervert the course of justice'?

You have misunderstood.

Gladstones sign the Claimant's Witness Statement.
Therefore if the statement they have signed is not true, then they leave themselves open to a charge of 'conduct likely to pervert the course of justice' or perjury.

Joey_Santiago

Thanks, that makes sense now

So the defence is complete unless anyone else has anything to add?

Interesting developments here as we're getting loads of press coverage, the local Green councillor has issued a press release and our MP is getting involved. I guess that sort of background is for the witness statement if we progress further.

Am I right in thinking that NPE are shown my defence and they decide whether to continue?

Coupon-mad

Remove #7 as it is repeated lower down in the abuse of process points.

And remove the BPA CoP because NPE are only in the IPC AOS:

British Parking Association Approved Operator Code of Practice (version 7 January 2018, Clause 18.10 ) "Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones.”

Apart from that it looks good to sign, date and email to the CCBCAQ email addy.

KeithP

Joey_Santiago wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that NPE are shown my defence and they decide whether to continue?

That's correct.

Joey_Santiago

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And remove the BPA CoP because NPE are only in the IPC AOS:

Redx thought it was worth including the BPA as an example and it is a much stronger statement than the IPC CoP. Do you think it's detrimental to include it?

"see what the BPA CoP says about new signage and quote it, even if you have an IPC member, also see what the IPC CoP says too
no reason why it cannot be used as an example, even if your PPC isnt a BPA member"

Redx

Perhaps remove it for now but add it as an extra example in the WS ?