Going to court for parking in my own spot

The_Deep

Whilst I admire the sentiment, I am doubtful that this complaint will fly CM. The wrong spelling could easily have been a type and, imo, you are a long way from proving male fides.

Remember The SRA has little interest in these parking case solicitors.

MrDramatique

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I am soooo glad I asked to see that WS even though it's kept me up half the night!

:eek:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07346382/officers

Apparently, Danylo Kurpil, the ex-police Director of District Enforcement, has signed (electronic copy of course) a statement of truth but has forgotten how to spell his own name...

RIGHT - this calls for an immediate email complaint to the SRA about Gladstones faking witness statements. An SRA complaint is already in and due to have an update later this week, so please please please, URGENTLY email another to the investigating officer:

To: report@sra.org.uk


FTAO
David Clare
Investigation Officer
Solicitors Regulation Authority

Dear Mr Clare,

Re: Gladstones Solicitors Limited, Warrington Road, High Legh, Knutsford, WA16 6AA (SRA ID 559050)

I understand that a complaint has been made under your ref POL/1278102-2019, and a current investigation is underway that suggests the above firm may have been in breach of the SRA's standards or requirements and that the allegations have been deemed serious enough to warrant further investigation.

I am unconnected to the previous complainant but have been informed about his complaint, where template witness statements have been submitted by this solicitor firm, with identical wording and case law cited which are not only not true witness statements from their client at all, but where it is clear that the witness cannot have signed it.

I too have received a Witness Statement from Gladstones, where they are acting for a different parking firm from the first complaint you are looking at, namely in my case, District Enforcement. The witness statement is attached, and here is the Companies House entry for that parking firm:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07346382/officers

I am showing you that link, so you can see that one of the Directors is known to be an ex-policeman named Danylo Kurpil. It is the case that Companies House has his name spelled correctly, because he can also be found with internet searches connected to his company.

It is beyond the realms of credibility that Danylo Kurpil checked and signed this Witness Statement. It is impossible to believe that an ex Policeman would 'sign' a witness statement and forget how to spell his own surname. But that is what Gladstones are expecting me to believe, as their cut & paste witness statement template is headed up as from one 'DANYLO KURPEL' - a person who does not exist.

And at the bottom of the document, I see a copied screenshot of a squiggle that may or may not be the real Danylo Kurpil's.

It goes without saying that the 'witness statement' itself is almost an exact match template for those used verbatim by Gladstones in all parking cases they take to court (tens of thousands per year) and the same template is in the public domain hundreds of times on the internet and it is clear it is written by the solicitor firm, not the client.

I find the same template witness statement can be Googled and found posted by victim Defendants on internet forums, just by searching for an unusual turn of phrase, and/or the name of the 'case law' that Gladstones always throw in (e.g. 'Alder v Moore Gladstones' as an internet search, finds versions of this statement going back years in parking firm claim cases).

Moreover, I understand you have already been shown a copy of a job advert where Gladstones were very recently advertising for freelance statement writers, working from home, which clearly indicates that their business model involves churning out template ''witness statements'' which appear to be false instruments with little or no input from any actual witnesses.

I would like to ask that you also consider my case in your investigation.

Most consumers would never stumble across online information showing that the signature is false and the witness statement a regurgitated template written by freelancers for the legal firm. I believe this is rife, but my case shows a new twist - a false instrument from a person who doesn't exist.

Even if Gladstones try to explain this as a typo by their robo claim admin team, it is proof if the SRA need more, that Gladstones are filing and serving witness statements that cannot possibly have been written, checked and signed by the person they are suggesting has signed it.

I am sure that this ex-Policeman, used to the requirements for proper, lawful witness statements, would be horrified if the SRA ask him about this matter and he discovers how his screenshot signature is being used to give legitimacy and put his name to a statement he cannot have made.

Mr Kurpil cannot possibly have forgotten how to spell his own name.

Whilst there is a current court claim from Mr Kurpil's company, this statement is a clear example of Gladstones operating in flagrant breach of the SRA's standards just to race through as many cut & paste meritless parking claims as they possibly can, without actually involving their clients in the fundamental matter of signing as a witness under a statement of truth.

If you require any further information about my case please contact me using this email or my telephone number, which is xxxxx xxxxxx. My case is ongoing and has an imminent court date.

Yours sincerely,


MrDramatique's real name and address

Attachment - false 'witness statement' emanating from Gladstones

Sent just now Coupon!

The_Deep

Copy to your MP after the election. .

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

Remember The SRA has little interest in these parking case solicitors.

There is an ongoing SRA investigation at this moment, into Gladstones issuing WS that they've written and that the client cannot have signed.

The more weight we can add to that complaint to make the SRA take it more seriously, the better.

And the OP can add a copy of his SRA complaint and any reply, into his evidence pack with his WS, which also needs to go in strong about the existing rights/easements and primacy of contract that Mr Kurpil thinks he can walk all over.

I don't expect that notoriously aggressive (as shown on this very forum and in private messages years ago that purported to be from him) ex-copper 'Dyl' Kurpil will be very happy about the Judge sniffing around that false instrument of a WS.

And there is a valid reason to name him on this forum as the Director of D/E, given the misspelling of his name that may have occurred in other WS that other victims reading this might realise affects them, too.

That plus the fact he is a named Director of D/Enforcement and that data is in the public domain anyway so I am not stating anything new or different.

Even the fact he is an ex-copper is not unknown - it's in the public domain, in a self-congratulatory news article that this nasty firm put out there themselves, years ago:

https://www.staffs.ac.uk/news-archive/law-graduates-aim-to-clean-up-the-parking-industry-tcm4234703.jsp

''...joined forces to set up District Enforcement with aid from Staffordshire University’s Enterprise Fellowship Scheme (EFS).''

The above partly explains the cosy relationship DE has with Staffs Uni, an horrendous money-machine of a site, where even lecturers were sued, and there was also a rumour of a closer connection and the contract not being fairly put out to tender (allegedly).

But that's another story.

MrDramatique

Hi all,

Thanks for the help so far. It was a bit overwhelming to get started but then it started to flow and I think I have a good WS so far.

I want to show you my WS thus far for feedback, admittedly I'm struggling on the signage fall back arguements in terms of referencing cases.

In order to actually compile my Exibits I'm going to have to nip to my office tonight and scan eveything in. Is it worth you guys seeing the exhibits or are you more interested in the content of the WS?

A few other questions:

1. I was thinking about including my exhibits as a seperate document - im thinking about the Judges ease of use, rather than flicking back and forth in the same document? I believe my submission will be too much for email submission as my local sourt requests documents under 10MB and 50 pages. So I may have to deliver in person on the day and can create comb binded documents at the office.

2. Has anyone been made aware of any sucess in emailing Gladstones their WS / bundle? I'm not sure what email to send it to. I've read its recommended you dont post it?

Redx

you mean WS , plus exhibits bundle , not defence, the defence went to the CCBC ages ago

add your exhibits as separate docs and pics , referencing them in your WS , ditto for the costs schedule

so if your name was John Smith , make them JS01 , JS02 etc

hand deliver your paginated bundle to the court , email it to the claimant , take a 3rd bundle with you on the day

MrDramatique

Redx wrote: »

you mean WS , plus exhibits bundle , not defence, the defence went to the CCBC ages ago

add your exhibits as separate docs and pics , referencing them in your WS , ditto for the costs schedule

so if your name was John Smith , make them JS01 , JS02 etc

hand deliver your paginated bundle to the court , email it to the claimant , take a 3rd bundle with you on the day

I have no idea why I keep making the mistake of saying Defence and mispelling it each time to boot. Yes sorry, WS / exhibit bundle.

Okay so three seperate documents, WS, Exhibit bundle and costs schedule.

MrDramatique

Evening all,

WS, Exhibit Bundle along with DE's WS uploaded for your viewing pleasure.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6nle79bjkx015wx/AACh37njTpb4YI-l7n06OaE-a?dl=0

I need to add another section in regards to the letter that the Land Management Company sent to DE instructing them to the WS and Exhibits, I forgot about that. Need to add my own photos to Exhibits too.

But yeah opinions please, I'm a bit stuck in terms of adding any cases in terms of the signage, maybe I dont need to. I'll take your counsel on that.

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

That's very good.

At your point #4 you should cite the trite law from Henderson v Henderson:

https://swarb.co.uk/henderson-v-henderson-20-jul-1843/

And are you going to attach a separate Supplementary WS like in BlueNine's thread, explaining why, even if the £60 debt collector fake costs are on the sign in small print, the Beavis case at 98,193 and 198 kicks any attempt at 'double recovery' of the operational costs/damages, right out (so does the POFA and the CRA 2015)?

So, even with £60 on the sign, they STILL can't recover that. The point is:

- the Beavis case says a parking charge 'has to' include the operational costs (and that is part & parcel of the legitimate interest and why ParkingEye won)

- thus, a parking charge from another PPC must do the same.

- if a PPC says that in fact the operational costs are in the extra £60 they've slapped on...then where does that leave the core parking charge of £100?! It surely leaves that charge unsupported by the Beavis case, as the PPC have taken away the very costs that it is meant to include.

- So what's the £100 for then, what can the breakdown possibly be to justify it, without operational costs?

- The original £100 parking charge MUST be an unrecoverable penalty if a PPC cuts it loose from the same justification in Beavis!

- The only other possible way to save the £100 from being a penalty would be if it was a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and it isn't/can't be, as there are no losses and DE are not in possession of the land so cannot plead a case in damages either (Beavis case says so).

- so if the actual £100 PCN is not covering the costs plus some profit (a la Beavis case) and nor is it a GPEOL either, then it's a penalty.

What are you going to say about the issues with the false instrument of this Gladstones WS that cannot have been signed by 'Dyl' Kurpil, and your complaint to the SRA?

MrDramatique

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's very good.

At your point #4 you should cite the trite law from Henderson v Henderson:

https://swarb.co.uk/henderson-v-henderson-20-jul-1843/

And are you going to attach a separate Supplementary WS like in BlueNine's thread, explaining why, even if the £60 debt collector fake costs are on the sign in small print, the Beavis case at 98,193 and 198 kicks any attempt at 'double recovery' of the operational costs/damages, right out (so does the POFA and the CRA 2015)?

So, even with £60 on the sign, they STILL can't recover that. The point is:

- the Beavis case says a parking charge 'has to' include the operational costs (and that is part & parcel of the legitimate interest and why ParkingEye won)

- thus, a parking charge from another PPC must do the same.

- if a PPC says that in fact the operational costs are in the extra £60 they've slapped on...then where does that leave the core parking charge of £100?! It surely leaves that charge unsupported by the Beavis case, as the PPC have taken away the very costs that it is meant to include.

- So what's the £100 for then, what can the breakdown possibly be to justify it, without operational costs?

- The original £100 parking charge MUST be an unrecoverable penalty if a PPC cuts it loose from the same justification in Beavis!

- The only other possible way to save the £100 from being a penalty would be if it was a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and it isn't/can't be, as there are no losses and DE are not in possession of the land so cannot plead a case in damages either (Beavis case says so).

- so if the actual £100 PCN is not covering the costs plus some profit (a la Beavis case) and nor is it a GPEOL either, then it's a penalty.

What are you going to say about the issues with the false instrument of this Gladstones WS that cannot have been signed by 'Dyl' Kurpil, and your complaint to the SRA?

Aww thank you.

Regarding the £60 charge, I'll read up what youve suggested but why the seperate WS? I think I will address this yes, now you've helped me out really. I've wanted to tackle this and have tried to focus on the main aspects.

Regarding the SRA complaint, meh, I've no reply and so I feel it lacks sustenance. However I do want to point out that the mispelling of his name cannot be a typo. Specifically the vowels are mirrored keys on a keyboard and even someone with severe dyslexia wouldn't make that mistake. Problem is any accusation is a far cry from fact and conjecture at best.