Gladstones Court Claim Documents - incorrect particulars

Jeff1279

Just bumping this so I can try and get it in tomorrow!

Le_Kirk

Put it in a ring binder with all your evidence cross referred from your witness statement and with a contents page and tabs on the evidence pages to allow the judge (and you) to quickly find it in court. If you can, hand deliver it to the court and get a receipt.

nosferatu1001

for the claimant you dont have to be as nice - post it to them first class, free proof of posting, but you do still need page numbers.

Coupon-mad

Remove this, not least because there is no such case as Beavis v P/Eye!:

The claimant lost this case, and it appears to be considered separate to Beavis vs Parkingeye.

Then this needs to refer to your SUPPLEMENTARY WS (search the forum and copy a good one from recent weeks). You need to include it and attached the 2 statute law schedules (you haven't mentioned the Consumer Rights Act 2015) and one case law that support this view:

6. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, this additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.

With this, append the copy signatures that were ll put on one sheet next to each other by a UKCPM poster last month:

7. The WS appears to not actually be signed by UKCPM, and a formal complaint has already been sent to the SRA about a similar UKCPM case where this exact same UKCPM 'electronic signature' was exposed by a lay representative last month, to be a facsimile and that UKCPM could not have signed the statement on the date stated under the facsimile signature, or at all.

You don't seem to have referred to any appended evidence like photos or case law, or maybe I missed it. A WS needs evidence with it.

Jeff1279

Hi Coupon. On the google docs link all that should be there. I've sent it as there was a risk I'd be an entire day later, I hope the Beavis vs Parkeye isn't too much of a mistake to cause me major problems.

I'll make sure to bring the copy signatures. Interestingly on my one they have redacted the Chapman signature with a giant black line across 90% of it!

Coupon-mad

Interestingly on my one they have redacted the Chapman signature with a giant black line across 90% of it!

Try left click & delete?

Jeff1279

It's a hardcopy!

Jeff1279

Judge found in my favour - on the basis of the Jopson VS Homeguard defence (stopping bs parking) and that the UKPCM had changed their signs afterwards to try and cover that.

Awarded me costs and said I’d make a very good lawyer so thanks team!!!

Le_Kirk

Well done, good news.

Coupon-mad

Jeff1279 wrote: »

Judge found in my favour - on the basis of the Jopson VS Homeguard defence (stopping bs parking) and that the UKPCM had changed their signs afterwards to try and cover that.

Awarded me costs and said I’d make a very good lawyer so thanks team!!!

Yay, well done you - ANOTHER UKCPM ONE BITES THE DUST!

:T

Which court and Judge?

Can you give a longer court report please, as to how you felt, what the rep said outside, and how it went once in the room?

Newbies like to read these reports to realise it isn't that scary!