Claim Form Received - Case Struck Out - Remote Hearing

Coupon-mad

Already dealt with on other threads, including today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76564695#Comment_76564695

HeavyEvy

Spoke to the court yesterday. They confirmed that my WS and other Documents had been received on time...Good, was a little nervous about the hand delivery and no receipt.

The court also confirmed they had not received anything from the claimant and it was therefore late. The court advised me to send an email to confirm that I had also not received anything from the claimant on time, so I sent that email, asked for no relief from sanctions etc


Home form work today and behold a WS on the door mat from Gladstones. Pretty sure this only got sent as mine must have arrived with them.

It's a shame it has arrived, but the franking mark on the enevelope shows it was not posted until the 5th, after the deadline, which may help. Although I am not going to give much weight to this being late.

I honestly had to stop myself from laughing as I read through the WS and 'Evidence'. Actually i failed to not laugh. It is so obvious its a copy and paste from a selection of other claims. There are whole paragraphs that are factually incorrect...to the point where they are contradicting themselves and their own evidence. What a bunch of idiots!!!

No surprises that it is 'signed' by Jack Chapman, but its not an ink signature so I am now going to find the post comparing signatures to see if its a fascimile. If it is I will send the SRA a complaint.

I'll take some time to process their WS and 'Evidence', but a couple of things that jump out immediately....

• They are referring to Elliott vs Loake and saying that allows them to presume the defendant is the driver...already got stuff prepared to respond to that.
• They say they are instructed to operate a parking management and enforcement scheme at ..... A totally different location in a totally different county.... I mean seriously the other side of the country. This was so obviously a copy and paste error.
• They have included a plan and annotated it to show where their signs 'were'. But all of my photos show there never were signs in some of those locations and for some locations there still are no signs...i'm off to take some more pictures tomorrow but i don't know if I can use these in court as they were not in my WS.
• They say there are entrance signs at the boundary of their 'authority'...but there are not...and handy google images I sent in my evidence pack confirm this
• They have included an image of A sign, not a photo, a nice clear image...problem is it is not the sign in the carpark and it has different wording and formatting. Their photo on the day shows it is different too, which might help. In fact althoughthere was only 1 sign in the car park, there were plenty of other signs in the other areas and car parks of the whole development and very few are the same.
• They haven't included any transcripts for the cases they refer to and they haven't numbered their evidence to be able to refer to it, which makes it almost impossible to logically follow how the evidence fits in with the witness statement.
• They say that the keeper never appealed...but then include a copy of the appeal I sent to the NTK and an APPEAL REJECTED letter, which they never sent to me anyway.

Anyway that's just a handful of blunders and while I am buoyed by the appaling quality of this document I am not sure how I can use it to my benefit, so more research tonight, yay. I'll maybe have some specific questions later on...

HeavyEvy

Compared my Jack Champan 'Signature' with those posted here...
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0peh5y3jjx43jl0/AAAGDPMrH1y3hJnQhyK9SGr6a?dl=0
...and no surpise it is identical...and being familiar with forgeries, I wont tell you how, I will be well prepared to point this out and provide my own expert witness statement on this.

Also checked their 'contract' as advised in other threads...
The company has only provided one signature not two (so its not a Director with a Witness and its not Two people on behalf of the company). So thats not in line with the Companies Act. Need to do a bit more reasearch on this to understand it, but thank you to others that have mentioned it.

The contract is also not with the 'Registered Owner' of the land as defined in the Land Registry Title for 'the development area in general' and obviously not with the specific one for my rented flat. It simply with the Management Company (who don't own the land)

I'll be sending off that SRA complaint tomorrow.

Will also scan and pop on drop box the WS/JC Signature etc for you all to have a laugh at on Monday. But now its dinner and beer time.

Have a good weekend folks

Umkomaas

Very nice dismantling job there HeavyEvy. Good to see someone take the bull by the horns rather than what we often see, a Dropbox link to the WS, and a plea for us to go through it and advise the poster how to deal with it.

Look forward to further updates as you travel this journey.

HeavyEvy

Found another shocker in their WS...

"The defendant avers she was visiting the current occupier and leaseholder of <the property>. Respectfully the resident may have a right to park, however, this right would not extend to the defendant as the defendant is not a tenant/leaseholder of the property and therefore has no rights over the parking space."

So they are saying the defendant, me, is not a tenant!!! Apart from the fact I have a tenancy agreement!!! More cut and paste from another WS there me thinks...particularly as I never averred anything like that in my defence or my WS.


Anyway, I was just reading other threads regarding the Companies Act 2006, specifically points 22 through 29 of this post...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=76543676&postcount=57

Can anyone explain why Section 44 is relevant and not Section 43? Section 43 seems to relate to a Contract. I guess a contract is also a document.

HeavyEvy

Just sent a complaint to the SRA, largely based on this example...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=76509041&postcount=53

But I added some specifics for my case, updated it a little and took out a couple of things.

I did that so it wasn't identical...complaining about a copy and paste WS by using a copy and paste complaint didn't seem totally appropriate.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant, so happy lots of complaints are going in about Gladstones when we KNOW the SRA are investigating them (I've seen the email confirming it).

HeavyEvy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Brilliant, so happy lots of complaints are going in about Gladstones when we KNOW the SRA are investigating them (I've seen the email confirming it).

Is that email something you can share?

Coupon-mad

bargepole already mentioned it when he talked about Jack Chapman's signature and identified this issue a few weeks back. He started the complaints.

HeavyEvy

Hi Folks,

Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and will have a Happy New Year. Its been a while since I have been on here so will have a read of all the latest posts to see whats happening.

Managed to finally get around to adding the Gladstones WS to a Dropbox account, more for general info and completeness of the thread rather than specific comments.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kcz0d41b4vuijas/Gladstones_WS.pdf?dl=0

I think I have things ready. Court date is 4 weeks away now. But by the end of today they were supposed to pay a fee, so will check with the court if that has been done as they were late withtheir WS so may have forgotten to pay up too.

If you do read this tripe and have any specific comments or winning points I am open to suggestions.