UKCPM County Court Claim

spacegup

15) I would summarise it more succinctly - that the C has cast aspersions in, ironically, a generic non-specific way, while in their own document proving that the defence is indeed specific to this claim. You ask that the court regards this obviously templated sentence - as it has appeared in the same Claimants bundle in multiple court claims - as a mere opinion, one that is undermined by the claimants own witness statement, and ask that the claimant explains why this statement has been included

thank you, much more succinct than I had it

Their witness statement does not read well in the slightest or contain any specific arguments yet they "submit that the defendant has not properly pleaded her defence".

Excellent WS and preparation here. I wouldn't be surprised if they crawl back under their rock before the hearing, but either way good luck with this, I will be reading for updates with interest.

Thank you :j I hope they don't back out now- I'm ready for the showdown :rotfl: I wasn't 100% confident before they sent their witness statement- seeing their cards has made me realise they have nothing to go on!!

Coupon-mad

It is great when you read typical PPC WS and realise they are just utter template drivel, referring to the wrong CoP in order to mislead the court and defendant, and that half the evidence can be blown over like a feather.

BTW the current IPC CoP DOES have that sentence about adding £60 so be careful you don't walk into a trap that they can easily rebut. Don't be put off the three case/statute law arguments that in themselves kill the added £60 anyway (never mind the CoP that has been written by and for the PPCs by the self-serving IPC).

Certainly rush in that SRA complaint with your copy WS, please. It is important that the SRA see the dreadful, copy & paste (NON WITNESS STATEMENT) templates that are still flying out at victims thanks to Gladstones and their cartel-like approach, adding £60 and, we assume, laughing when thousands of victim consumers fail every year with their basic defences, or don't defend and get a default CCJ, and have to pay more than is potentially legally recoverable.

That should be illegal.

spacegup

Just received a very tempting offer from Gladstones that they will generously accept £190 as a full and final payment :rotfl:

Le_Kirk

Very nice! Are you going back with an offer of your own? Somewhat nearer to ZERO!

spacegup

I'm undecided, if I did it would be zero, or even that they give me £190 instead of the other way around

beamerguy

spacegup wrote: »

Just received a very tempting offer from Gladstones that they will generously accept £190 as a full and final payment :rotfl:

Bet they will, better for them, the alternative for them is a good spanking in court and paying your costs

Wonder if there is a mother Gladstones around who could sit these unruly children down and explain the facts of life ?

spacegup

My hearing took place this morning, and I'm happy to report.......

I WON!!!     

Gladstones didn't even show up for the hearing!

Will write a full report now!

Le_Kirk

Well done!

nosferatu1001

Well done! 
Did you get your costs?!?

spacegup

nosferatu1001 said:

Well done! 
Did you get your costs?!?

Thank you!! Only £15 awarded- details below. Better than nothing 

Court Report:

As soon as we’ve settled in the hearing room, the judge starts talking and it’s obvious the other side aren’t going to show.

The Judge explains he has had a “strange email” from Gladstones stating their client may or may not attend court, and laughed, saying “that means they didn’t bother asking them”. No word on why Gladstones themselves didn’t show, but we were off to a good start!

The judge read through the paperwork for a while and then asked me why I thought the parking space was a marked bay (the first point of my defence). He was particularly interested in the photos I provided, which proved my point nicely, and seemed to be satisfied.

After only about 10 minutes or so of him reading and asking the odd question, he summarised the facts of the case and it sounded like he was going to side with them- but then said ‘the claimant has failed to prove that this wasn’t a marked bay, so this claim is dismissed’. (Not word for word but the gist of how he put it)

He then stated that as the claim is struck out on the first point, he doesn’t need to consider an abuse of process, explaining it would require “further thought”. For this reason he said he couldn't award me my LiP costs- but did award £15 for printing and postage!

I was just happy to get it over with, and he didn’t seem to want to discuss anything else, so I didn’t bring up Jack Chapman or anything else. As Gladstones weren’t even there it seemed a bit fruitless to get into it.