Claim Form Received - Case Struck Out - Remote Hearing

HeavyEvy

Hi Folks,

Less than two weeks until my hearing, but as with many others I am expecting to receive something to say it will be held by telephone. Needless to say I will object to this, but my only reason is that I think it does put me at a significant disadvantage, I don’t have disabilities or child care or distractions and I am technically capable of taking part, I just don’t like it at all.
Do you think it more likely Gladstones would do these phone hearings themselves instead of hiring locals? How about the possibility of the elusive Jack Chapman joining in one of these phone hearings? Anybody actually had one?

Anyway, the reason for the post today is that I have received a Supplemental Witness Statement from Jack, via Gladstones.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwdau8iy9j01lax/Gladstones_Supplemental_WS.pdf?dl=0
This seems to be in response to my WS and the Supplemental WS I sent, which just addressed the issue of his signature. I expect it’s also because I pointed out the enormous number of errors in his original WS and (t)he(y) wanted to try and correct some of that. It was slightly amusing to note that Jack still can't get the address for UKCPM correct. Not only that there are still lots of errors in the supplemental WS. So they have failed to correct some.

Jack has given a response to the signature topic. I expect this will be another copy and paste into many WS going forward, either in anticipation of the topic being raised or as a response to a defendants WS. I had a quick look for the Law Commission notes on Electronic Signatures and found this link...
https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/electronic-signatures-are-valid-confirms-law-commission/
I note that it says
"...provided that the signatory intends to authenticate the document..."
My interpretation of this is that Jack needs to attend and confirm this is his signature for it to have legal force, but I am not legally trained so that may not be exactly the case. However, let’s stick to the basics...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signature

"An electronic signature refers to data in electronic form, which is logically associated with other data in electronic form"
The documents I have received so far are not in electronic form and so the signature on those documents cannot be an electronic signature.
"An electronic signature is intended to provide a secure and accurate identification method"
A picture of a signature pasted into a document provides no security or identification; it fails to provide any Authentication, Integrity or Non-Repudiation of the document/communication. Had the WS statements been emailed to me as something like a pdf then there would have been ample opportunity to apply a proper Electronic Signature using a method such as a Digital Signature Algorithm, holding the private key being proof it was ‘signed by Jack’. Even if such a method was not used, by sending the document via email and as an attachment there could have been verifiable logs of the email chain so that the electronic communication/document could have acted as a form of signature. In fact I am sure I saw one case where an email from an estate agent was considered a legally binding offer on this basis. But a printed document with what is effectively an image of a signature surely cannot be considered an Electronic Signature.

Jack then says not all of my photos are time stamped, which is true. But how many of you have that setting enabled by default? I did however back these up with google maps images that are timestamped (being able to check the historical images was very helpful). Should I be concerned about this? How important is it that some of my photographic evidence is not timestamped?

Jack says the land registry document doesn't include the right to a parking space, but the land registry document includes...
"The registered lease dated 28 March 2013 grants the exclusive use of the car parking space tinted pink on the title plan."

He also says my tenancy agreement does state a parking space is included. While that appears very helpful it's a typo, the ASTA doesn't mention anything at all about parking. But I rented the 'property known as xxxx' and the land registry says the property includes the parking space, so I am not concerned about this. Is my logic sound? Later in the document he says that because I was a tenant and not the landowner I do not have any rights under lease. Fairly sure that’s not the case.

He goes on about the signage again and tries to claim the site plan they provided proves >40 signs are in place. But there is no evidence to support such a claim, just a google maps overhead view with yellow dots annotated onto it. The only photo of a sign is the one sign in the car park high up on lamp post behind my vehicle, poorly lit, small wording, and all the usual. The car park is one of 5-6 within the development, the first you come to, so loads of signs elsewhere have no relevance to the car park where my space is. Anyway, all my photos and google maps screen grabs prove that signs are missing or were never there. I'm fairly confident on this area.

Jack mentions that permits were issued in early 2016. But I didn't move in until late 2017. I think that's important because later in the document he goes on to say that because I accepted a permit I am effectively accepting all of the terms that were in the covering letter. But I never received that covering letter as I wasn't a resident at the time. Not sure how to turn this in my favour as I cannot prove the negative of not seeing the covering letter.  He goes on to say how I have benefitted from the scheme but have never objected to it. But when I moved in I was never offered the option to opt out, which was only offered to me AFTER I complained to Chamonix Estates. Any advice?

The one that annoys me the most is that this supplemental WS, even more so that the first one which was so inconsistent it’s not worth mentioning, keeps referring to me as if I was the driver, which I was not (I’m still not willing to throw my friends to the dogs). If the PPC have a contract it is with the driver, not the keeper. But for there to be a contract with the driver the signs need to be adequate, which they are not.

Jack goes on about CPR and how I obviously don’t understand they are entitled to claim costs. Not at all, I do understand that, my issue was with the £60, which he hasn't addressed here, wow, I wonder why not. Although he has included the (A)TA COP statement about how it’s acceptable.

Given all the other claims that have been thrown out on the £60 issue I am very surprised and disappointed that my case (and so many others) isn’t now simply being thrown out across the board.

Anyway, my thanks for all the advice and support so far. I have actually found this a very interesting exercise in researching legal texts. It has brought me very low at some points. With other things going on there have been dark days (and that was before coronavirus), but your support has been invaluable. I am hoping this will be one of my last posts on this specific PCN. I will obviously provide a detailed court report no matter what the outcome is. Am I allowed to appeal if it doesn’t go in my favour?

Stay safe folks.

Edit. Also, I sent a complain tto he SRA, months ago but despite their auto repsonse saying they should relpy in 30 days I have heard nothing at all. Is it worth me chasing this? Has ANYBODY had a reply? Is this still a thing they are looking in to?

Coupon-mad

He goes on to say how I have benefitted from the scheme but have never objected to it. But when I moved in I was never offered the option to opt out, which was only offered to me AFTER I complained to Chamonix Estates.

He has too much time on his hands (I am very pleased to say - I really hope UKCPM sink this year).
You never accepted any terms on a covering letter that they admitted was only sent once, a year before you moved in!  Here is the case law on the rule that ''one cannot impose an obligation on another to reject one's offer'':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felthouse_v_Bindley

However, if the signs had been prominent and clear then acceptance of the terms could have been deemed communicated 'by conduct' of the driver deciding to park even though they now about the £100 charge and terms/obligation to display a permit.

DO NOT object to a telephone hearing in the current climate.  The Courts are doing their best and you do not want to p*ss the Judge off before you even speak on the phone.  But prepare well, expect a legally qualified adversary who will steal the floor and talk all over you and talk utter codswallop in a posh voice, usually! 

If you are expecting that it will rile you less.

As they speak, note down quickly anything they say that is wrong/a lie, but be careful when it is then your turn to speak that you remain calm & polite, don't criticise the rep as they are just the hired gun and are told what to say and may be good at public speaking.  You can state things like ''the Claimant is mistaken, when they say blah blah...and my evidence exhibit x shows this''.

Most importantly have a bullet point list of your main points and the evidence exhibit each point is supported by:
1.  Poor signage - no contract agreed or seen by the driver - see exhibits x, xx.
2.  I was not driving and cannot be held liable due to 'inadequate notice of the parking charge', which is a failure in the only applicable 'keeper liability' law - see the POFA exhibit x)
3.  I had no opportunity to read the 'covering letter' the C admits was only provided once, a year before I moved in!'  See exhibit x.
4.  My tenancy is silent about permits or parking obligations - see exhibit x.
5.  However the flat does come with 'exclusive use' of a parking bay (exhibit x).
6.  No landowner authority - the managing agent is not the landowner.
7. anything else specific to your case (Jopson v Homeguard or whatever?)
8.  The C has not 'signed' this template WS. The SRA are investigating.
9. The WS is littered with errors (talk the Judge through it)
10.  The C has added the usual false £60 = abuse of process (exhibits x, xx, xxx)

Then do not forget to ask for your costs at £19 phr and be ready to spell out the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant to try to reach that very high bar, to get those costs.

Edit. Also, I sent a complain tto he SRA, months ago but despite their auto repsonse saying they should relpy in 30 days I have heard nothing at all. Is it worth me chasing this? Has ANYBODY had a reply? Is this still a thing they are looking in to?

Yes, most people heard that the SRA would report back by late March but of course coronavirus got in the way.  But rest assured Gladstones were/are being investigated by the SRA and these template WS are not WS at all and hopefully your Judge will be one who realises that.

HeavyEvy

As expected I have just received an email to say that my case will now be a Remote Hearing.

As this is being heard on Monday I phoned the person that sent me the email to check if the Judge would have all the documentation. After that phone call I received a second email to confirm that anything I wanted the Judge to have needed to be emailed to the court so it could be sent digitally.

So i've just turned everything into a PDF and emailed it back to the court.

I sent one email for the items that I felt were essential and a second for some additional items that are not (I made the files as small as possible but the total was still quite a large attachment size so splitting it up seemed sensible).

As I don't have access to a scanner (I use the one at work) I just used print to .pdf to create the new files. However, this did allow me to create a proper Electronic Signature, just to show Jack how easy it is

Fingers crossed for Monday

nosferatu1001

Fingers crossed!

Coupon-mad

I fear you have missed including the original defence I expect, and not yet read the new Telephone Hearings thread?  Surely the Order tells you exactly what you were meant to do, and that you were required to liaise with the Claimant to agree to a single case bundle, and to supply your phone number in an email with a specific subject line?

Or not?  Maybe yours is different than the one posted by bargepole on that new thread?

Please can you add your Telephone Hearing Order (with your name/address and claim number redacted of course!) in a reply there (not here) so we can discuss strategy which is what that thread is all about.

HeavyEvy

Coupon-mad said:

I fear you have missed including the original defence I expect, and not yet read the new Telephone Hearings thread?  Surely the Order tells you exactly what you were meant to do, and that you were required to liaise with the Claimant to agree to a single case bundle, and to supply your phone number in an email with a specific subject line?

Or not?  Maybe yours is different than the one posted by bargepole on that new thread?

Please can you add your Telephone Hearing Order (with your name/address and claim number redacted of course!) in a reply there (not here) so we can discuss strategy which is what that thread is all about.

Apologies CM I have only just seen this and will get the email I received added to the other thread now.

In the email bundle I sent to the court I DID include my original defence (I had already read the other thread saying to include it).

HeavyEvy

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

No Show from the Claimant.

No Show from Gladstones.

DJ Beamish at Luton

I was nervous, although I was really looking forward to reeling through all my case evidence, but it was not to be.

I suspect UKCPM/Gladstones knew they were going to handed their backside on a plate and just didn't bother showing up.

The result is that very quickly the Judge struck out the claim for the claimant failing to attend. He also noted that the claimant had not filed any evidence. I'm not sure if that was filed with the court originally, or emailed through on Friday as they were asked to. The Judge had my WS/Evidence etc, but not my Schedule of Costs, so he gave me his email address and I sent it to him.

I asked for the Judge to consider Unreasonable Behaviour. The Judge asked me to present the case but although he sympathised with me he said that basically because he had struck out the claim rather than making a ruling based on the evidence he could not consider the appalling WS and all the errors it contained and so threshold had not been reachedbased solely on the late WS and not attending. I suspect this is why UKCPM/Gladstones didn't turn up. They were minimising their losses. Had I got unreasonable behavious my schedule of costs would have been around £1200

So, claim struck out, UKCPM to pay me £95.

I shall be using the money to buy more PETG so I can 3D print more faceshileds for the NHS https://www.3dcrowd.uk/ £95 will let me print around 100 more.

I would like to say thank you to every one that has read my thread and given me support.

Without your support I would have given in and paid at some point.

D_P_Dance

You can always  ask them for compensation for your time, However, imo £1200 seems rather a lot.]

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

beamerguy

Brilliant, well done.   I am a bit confused, was this a face to face or by phone ?

Anyway, it really does make one wonder what attracts UKCPM to use Gladstones who day by day are becoming more and more incompetent.   It shows that UKCPM are incompetent as well

bargepole

beamerguy said:

Brilliant, well done.   I am a bit confused, was this a face to face or by phone ?

There's a big clue right here: '' The Judge had my WS/Evidence etc, but not my Schedule of Costs, so he gave me his email address and I sent it to him.''