Claim form - Residential parking - Issue date 06 SEP 2019 - GLADSTONES

Le_Kirk

Seems like a good WS, however, you seem to be jumping between defence style and WS style.  Defences are written in the Third Person, i.e. "the defendant this, that or the other" and WS are written in First Person, i.e. "I did this, that or the other"  You have a mixture of both and it needs to be First Person only.

Fruitcake

As usual, the contract is not valid as it has not been executed in accordance with the strict requirements of  Section 44 of The Companies Act 2006. This law (The Act) requires a contract to be signed by two authorised people from both parties to the contract, or by a Director of both companies and a witness to each signature.

There is no proof that either signatory is authorised in accordance with the Act, nor that they were a Director of the company at the time. You put the scammers to proof of the contrary.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

The contract states the agreement is between OPS and Jordan and Cook on behalf of their (OPS's) client Rocco Homes/Urbancity.
No evidence has been provided to show that Jordan and Cook has authority to act on behalf of the landowner. Again, you put the scammers to proof they do have the landowner's authority to scam either by a direct contract with said landowners or through a contract between the landowner and Jordan and Cook, and a contract between Jordan and Cook and Rocco Homes authorising a contract to scam.

You also want proof that the contract has not been terminated and is still in force as no such proof to the contrary has been provided.

AOneVS

hi3rophant said:

Fruitcake said:

Redact your personal data, but please do post up everything from the scammers/scamlicitors themselves.

Please find attached my WS and the solicitors package

Hi hi3rophant, check the statement of truth at the end of the WS. It needs to be changed from the defence wording.

hi3rophant

I received the attached Notice of Discontinuance by email from Gladstones. It is specified that a copy has been filed at the Court. 
Does this mean it's over ?

Umkomaas

hi3rophant said:

I received the attached Notice of Discontinuance by email from Gladstones. It is specified that a copy has been filed at the Court. 
Does this mean it's over ?

'Discontinues all of this Claim' means exactly that. Dead as a dodo!  Game and hassle over, just concentrate now on keeping safe and healthy.

D_P_Dance

They have wasted your time, now waste theirs.

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

 

hi3rophant

Thanks everyone. I wouldn't have done it without you.

D_P_Dance said:

They have wasted your time, now waste theirs.

I would like to hurt them! Has anyone done this before? What would be the basis of my claim? Would it be against the parking company or the solicitors? 

Umkomaas

hi3rophant said:

Thanks everyone. I wouldn't have done it without you.

D_P_Dance said:

They have wasted your time, now waste theirs.

I would like to hurt them! Has anyone done this before? What would be the basis of my claim? Would it be against the parking company or the solicitors? 

Not to my knowledge, but it hasn't stopped DPD dispensing copypasta at any opportunity.  Perhaps he'll help you with the drafting of the claim and its associated paperwork. On the other hand .......! 😩

zhonguonuren

Great result!  Obviously a cracking WS that Gladstones Solicitors could not fight.  

You could send a letter/email before action to the parking company saying it was a breach of GDPR when, without a valid claim, it released your personal details to Gladstones Solicitors and you deserve compensation to reflect the anxiety and inconvenience caused (or words similar)
You could make a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office
Email
casework@ico.org.uk

D_P_Dance

You would claim against the PPC for wrongful access to DVLA data, or harassment, under Housing legislation, or  trespass etc. It would require a lot of work and is not for the easily confused or the indolent, but imo well worth doing, read these

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/324523-ukpc-liable-for-trespass-success/

https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/08/parking-company-sues-top-qc-loses/