Gladstones Letter Before Claim

Coupon-mad

I would file & serve a skeleton and slip in this (no apology) and hope it is allowed:

I'm gonna have a crack at pulling together a skeleton argument using Amis95's version - I found one his one to be really clear. How many days before the hearing date do I need to submit that? And can I provide more evidence e.g. my version of the parking map UK CMP have provided highlighting where I parked?

Try it. What's the worst that can happen? Judge disallows that map...but they probably won't if it's filed & served properly, in advance, with a helpful skeleton.

Please please please make the same SRA complaint as everyone else re Jack Chapman's signature. This week, with a copy of this WS for the SRA to see it is a template like all the others. Think of each one as a potential nail in Gladstones' coffin, hopefully (and certainly it will 'mark their card' at the SRA, even if this particular series of complaints is batted away in March, once the investigation concludes). You never know, so please join the Gladstones complaints pile!

ts6789

I would file & serve a skeleton and slip in this (no apology) and hope it is allowed:

What do you mean by "no apology"?

Okay, agree there's no harm in giving it a shot. Do you know roughly when a skeleton argument should be filed and served by?

Will submit the SRA complaint today using the template you've provided CrazyM101's thread.

ts6789

Hi, I've pulled together a skeleton argument using Amis95's version. Grateful for any comments - particular on sections highlighted in red related to the parallel parking signs and the site map which UK CMP have submitted which seems to show they have no authority to issue a ticket.

I still need to find the relevant evidence but if anyone can point me in the right direction - that would be helpful!

In the County Court at
XXXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

Skeleton Argument of XXXXXXX, Address: XXXXXXX

PREAMBLE

1. This skeleton argument is to assist the Court in the above matter for the hearing dated on 04/02/2020.

2. The Claimant’s legal representative informed that the Claimant’s witness will not attend the hearing, presenting a significant disadvantage for the Defendant. The author of statement will invariably not be there to give evidence. If he doesn't turn up in court the statement is inadmissible evidence as the Defendant can't question him upon its validity.!

3. The witness and the accompanying witness statement is not credible. It contains invalid, false and vexatious statement which can be shown in this skeleton argument. Moreover, it displays a laissez-faire attitude towards submitting a truthful, factual witness statement.

4. The Defendant will highlight to the Court that the claim is not only fundamentally misconceive and flawed, but that the claimant behaved unreasonably.

5. The witness statement by Jack Chapman is contradictory, confusing and particularly troublesome as detailed below.

THE ISSUES

6. The Defendant has identified the following areas of dispute:

(a)!! The Claimant’s witness statement is not signed hence it is invalid

(b)!! The identity of the driver

(c)!! The presumption of the driver

(d)!! The burden of proof

(e)!! Unclear signange

(f)!!! Keeper Liability

(g)!! No locus standi

(h)!! Conduct

SUBMISSIONS

7. The Defendant admits that they were not the driver at the material time of the PCN.

8. The Defendant submits that the bright, alarmist letters were seen as a scam or spam, and recognised at the material time that they were not from an authority such as council or the police. The Claimant referenced nothing in relation to holding the Defendant liable under statute.

9. It is submitted that the Defendant did not appeal the PCN and was under no obligation to do so as the keeper. The Defendant correctly assumed at the material time (and to-date) that the issue was of no relevance to them.

10. The Defendant submits that there are pictures showing the vehicle bearing the same mark to which they are the registered keeper, but cannot adduce any further information.

11. The Defendant submits that it would not be in the interest of Court time to rebuff each and every individual accusation by the Claimant that the Defendant was the driver.

GENERAL ARGUMENTS

12. As detailed in the Claimant’s witness statement, the primary argument for issuing the claim against the Defendant is predominantly based on a crucial but rebutted piece of information; the Defendant was the driver at the material time of the PCN.

13. Furthermore, the remainder of the points raised in the defence are particularly specific in application. The Defendant will show that the claimant failed to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, has failed to show evidence of locus standi for the land and signs can be evidenced as unclear, illegible and confusing.

14. Any single one of the above is fatal to the Claimant’s case.

THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT IS NOT SIGNED HENCE IT IS INVALID

15. The witness statement appear to not actually be signed by Mr Jack Chapman, and a formal complaint has already been sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) about a similar UK CPM case where this exact same UKCPM 'electronic signature' was exposed by a lay representative last month, to be a facsimile and that UK CPM could not have signed the statement on the date stated under the facsimile signature, or at all.

16. In the two cases in October, Claim Nos. E9GF9M7K and E4GF8M1R, UKCPM -v- Mrs A, before Deputy District Judge Chohan at High Wycombe statements purported to have been signed by 'Jack Chapman', an employee of the Claimant Company, could not have been. A comparison of the signatures on these two statements showed that the signatures are 100% identical in every respect, down to the last pixel. It was highly improbable, if not impossible, that any person would sign his name twice in a completely identical manner on two separate occasions, three months apart. The same signature in this case too. See Exhibit XX.

17. The complaint to the SRA continued: ''The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this, is that Gladstones have copied, traced, or otherwise forged Mr Chapman's signature, and that in fact Mr Chapman has never seen or signed these statements. This is particularly relevant in the case of the second statement, which was emailed to the Defendant on the day after it was created. Gladstones are based in Knutsford, Cheshire, whereas the Claimant company are situated in West Sussex. Unless they couriered it by helicopter, it is clear that Mr Chapman could not have signed it.

18.This is a significant and serious act of dishonesty, for which Lesley Layton of Lance Mason Solicitors was struck off the roll in 2017. See Exhibit XX

19. The complaint, currently under investigation against Gladstones, suggested that the SRA needs to take urgent action on this matter, as it is more likely than not that this is an ongoing and regular practice. See Exhibit XX

20. In the case of UKCPM v Mrs A on 17th October, Deputy District Judge Chohan at High Wycombe struck out both conjoined claims. He also agreed that the two factors of late service, and a defective WS, crossed the threshold of unreasonable behaviour, and awarded Mrs A her full costs in the sum of £331.80, which he said was a very reasonable figure.

21. My case has the same facsimile signature from a person who was not a witness. It is a templated statement and 'Jack' from UKCPM is not here to be cross examined, being conspicuous by his absence.

22. The statement refers Mr Jack Chapman’s address as ‘Ground floor, 19 New Road,’ which is the 1st part of UK CPMs address in Brighton but the postcode W1B 3HH is postcode in London which shows the address incorrect. This is a repeated error in UKCPM’s template witness statement with fraudulent signature. See Exhibit XX

THE IDENTITY OF THE DRIVER

23. The Defendant refutes the many allegations by the Claimant in their witness statement that they were the driver at the material time either directly or by presumption. The Claimant has no evidence to the contrary and the accusations are merely ‘hear-say’ and conjecture; not a factual reciting of a witness who was present at the material time.

24. The Claimant’s Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS), International Parking Community code of practice Part C para 1 clearly indicates that the only possible way for the Keeper Liability is Sought by using the Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 12) which the Claimant is not relying upon. The Defendant knows that the Claimant has no grounds in pursuing the keeper let alone assuming her as the driver.

THE PRESUMPTION OF THE DRIVER

25. It is clear in trite law that where there is no forensic and/or reliable evidence, that a registered keeper of a vehicle cannot be declared the driver at any given point in time. In fact, in some instances they may barely drive the vehicle at all.

26. The Defendant brings to the Court’s attention POPLA Lead adjudicator and Barrister Mr. Henry Greenslade’s statement regarding keeper liability in the POPLA Annual Report of 2015: “there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

27. District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds in the case of Excel v Lamoureux [2016] C3DP56Q5 although only persuasive, comes to a comparable conclusion as Mr Greenslade: “The Defendant denies he is the driver and the claimant has absolutely no evidence that he was the driver. There is no assumption in law that the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle. That is trite law…” See Exhibit XX

28. District Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds then concludes judgement by stating: “The claim against Mr. Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver”.

29. In the County Court at Liverpool Claim No. C1DP0H0J, Deputy District Judge Gourley dismissed the case between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) and Sarah Quayle (Defendant) due to the Claimant failure to provide evidence that the keeper was in fact the driver. See Exhibit AMXX

30. The Claimant had no entitlement to proceed on the presumption that the keeper is also the driver.

THE BURDEN OF PROOF

31. The Defendant has no obligation to prove that they were not the driver. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove that the Defendant was the driver.

32. Section 172 (2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it clear that the registered keeper of a vehicle is required to furnish the police with the identity of the driver under statute: “(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police…”

33. There is no such statute requiring the registered keeper to identify the driver of a parking charge on private land. In any event, the Defendant does not know the identity of the driver, only that they themselves were not driving.

34. Mr Henry Greenslade comments on this particular issue in the 2015 POPLA Annual Report: “…a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 [POFA 12] to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time”.

35. The fact that compliant notices leverages statute, it is pertinent to apply his comments to non-compliant notices.

36. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the burden of proof for identifying the driver should not lay with the Defendant.

UNCLEAR SIGNAGE

37. The Defendant is bemused by the witness’s statement evidence of the signage which they refer to be as the contract which was breached at the material time. The Defendant has submitted evidence of a parking sign from a different parking company located directly opposite the UK CMP sign. Neither sign makes clear which rules apply and where the boundaries are, making it impossible for any individual to know which company they are entering into a contractual obligation with.

38. The Defendant calls into question whether the signs used by this Claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver.

KEEPER LIABILITY

39. Liability can only be transferred lawfully by strictly following Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which was enacted into statute to prevent this very issue and ensure lawful transfer of liability for private land owners. UK CPM chose not to utilise this statute and therefore attempts to transfer liability unlawfully. Mr Henry Greenslade comments on this within the 2015 POPLA Annual Report: “The only presumption that anyone else is liable for such a charge is under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”.

40. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that UK CPM have failed to make the Defendant liable for any parking charges.

NO LOCUS STANDI

41. The Claimant has submitted a site map of Stevedore Street, highlighting the areas in which they are authorised to operate.. Exhibit X highlights in green where the vehicle in question was parked. This is outside of the areas highlighted in red.

42. The Claimaint’s site map also highlights the location of their signs, marked by yellow dots. There appears to be no yellow dots near where the vehicle was parked. However, as shown in the Claimant’s photograph of the incident, there is evidently a sign on the left of the vehicle.

43. The Defendant therefore legitimately brings into question as to the validity of the original particulars of claim and/or the authority of the disclosed contract agreement.

44. The Defendant believes the Claimant had no interest in the land, no legal standing to enter into a contract or to litigate in their own name on behalf of the lawful occupier.

CONDUCT

45. The Defendant’s conduct and defence was entirely with merit.

46. Due to the ‘robot-issued’ nature of the claim particulars, the Defendant was unnecessarily disadvantaged in regards to the pertinent facts and information of the claim.

47. The Claimant claims that their IPC AOS code of practice allows include an additional £60 however, the Defendant clearly indicated in their witness statement that this is against POFA 12 and the Consumer Rights Act! 2015 schedule 2.

48. The Defendant had no choice but to serve a fully comprehensive and inclusive defence in response to the claim and therefore should be used in determining the facts.

49. The Defendant’s view is that the witness statement is merely a ‘copy and paste’ exercise by the Claimant by reason that several paragraphs are not related to this case and propagates irrelevant points.

50. The Claimant seeks to apportion liability to the Defendant for not replying to their letters or identifying the driver, and suggests that this conduct caused the Claimant costs.

51. The Defendant has demonstrated to the Court that the Claimant has been wholly unreasonable. It is also argued that the conduct of the Claimant cannot be overlooked and has therefore put forward a statement of costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(g) for consideration by the Court.

52. The Defendant would like to ask that the case is dismissed with no relief from sanctions and that my full costs are granted on the indemnity basis, including (as well as my ordinary costs for attendance) my hours of time at the Litigant in Person rate (£19 per hour for 3 hours spent in extensive research, reading reams of cut & paste template Gladstones paperwork and preparing my own documents and evidence).

Coupon-mad

No apology for lateness of course! You do not apologise for late evidence.

ts6789

Ahh gotcha!

Any comments on the above skeleton argument? Not sure if I've worded the sections in red correctly!

Coupon-mad

15. The witness statement appear to not actually be signed by Mr Jack Chapman, and a formal complaint has already been sent to the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) about a similar UK CPM case where this exact same UKCPM 'electronic signature' was exposed by a lay representative last month,

Not last month now - it was before Christmas and is being investigated currently.

All the evidence should be easy to find by Googling or linked in the Abuse of Process thread, so what are you missing? Did you not already send it with your WS?

ts6789

I didn't include it with my WS because I hadn't received their WS until after I submitted

I'm missing the ones from paragraph 17, 19, 28 and 30. I'll use post 53 from Crazym101's thread as evidence for paragraph 20.

ts6789

I've got all the relevant evidence except for the original complaint to the SRA regarding their use of Jack Chapman's signature (which I'm referring to in 19 of my skeleton argument). Any one able to point me in the right direction?

Redx

checkout the posts by Bargepole , I am sure he posted a link to the Jack Chapman signature issues

ts6789

I've got the copies of the Jack Chapman's signatures from previous witness statements hxxps://www.dropbox.com/sh/0peh5y3jjx43jl0/AAAGDPMrH1y3hJnQhyK9SGr6a?dl=0

but can't find the original complaint to the SRA - POL/1278102-2019. Do I need that?