UKCPM - own parking space

Coupon-mad

Yes, very nicely worded.

Puts them very much on the spot and will be the first thing you raise at the hearing...

Callisto1610

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, very nicely worded.

Puts them very much on the spot and will be the first thing you raise at the hearing...

ok thanks my hearing is tomorrow. Hope it will end on this points like @bargepole's case.

Coupon-mad

Take your wage slip so you can claim/prove your costs when you win, assuming you did put in a costs schedule already.

Take proof that you did post or email your WS & costs schedule to the other side's solicitors, as their reps often say 'I haven't got it' and imply the Defendant failed to serve it. Whip out your proof that you did!

Get there half an hour early to get through security calmly and read your notes.

Politely refuse to engage when the Elms Legal girly (probably, but maybe a chap...certainly not from Gladstones) rocks up. Don't discuss your case in a side room beforehand, or get drawn on her suggesting you settle outside the court room!

If the Judge starts to say that the Claimant can speak first, cough politely and say there is an important preliminary objection to the Claimant's Witness Statement:

''The Claimant's witness statement and evidence should be struck out as being so far past the 14-day deadline for serving that it prejudices me, and there has been no application for relief from sanctions. Given that the Claimant is represented by solicitors, there can be no excuse for such late service.

Secondly, the WS appear to not actually be signed by UKCPM, and a formal complaint has already been sent to the SRA about a similar UKCPM case where this exact same UKCPM 'electronic signature' was exposed by a lay representative last month, to be a facsimile and that UKCPM could not have signed the statement on the date stated under the facsimile signature, or at all.

In the two cases in October, statements purported to have been signed by 'Jack Chapman', an employee of the Claimant Company, could not have been. A comparison of the signatures on these two statements showed that the signatures are 100% identical in every respect, down to the last pixel. It was highly improbable, if not impossible, that any person would sign his name twice in a completely identical manner on two separate occasions, three months apart.

The complaint to the SRA continued: ''The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this, is that Gladstones have copied, traced, or otherwise forged Mr Chapman's signature, and that in fact Mr Chapman has never seen or signed these statements. This is particularly relevant in the case of the second statement, which was emailed to the Defendant on the day after it was created. Gladstones are based in Knutsford, Cheshire, whereas the Claimant company are situated in West Sussex. Unless they couriered it by helicopter, it is clear that Mr Chapman could not have signed it.

This is a significant and serious act of dishonesty, for which Lesley Layton of Lance Mason Solicitors was struck off the roll in 2017:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/solicitor-thoroughly-embarrassed-by-pi-claims-dishonesty/5063288.article''

The complaint, currently under investigation against Gladstones, suggested that the SRA needs to take urgent action on this matter, as it is more likely than not that this is an ongoing and regular practice.

UKCPM also put out a recent job advert for freelance witness statement writers, working from home, which clearly indicates that their business model involves bashing out templated 'witness statements' with little or no input from any actual witnesses.

In the case of UKCPM v Mrs A on 17th October (which must be fresh in the minds of UKCPM), Deputy District Judge Chohan at High Wycombe struck out both conjoined claims. He also agreed that the two factors of late service, and a defective WS, crossed the threshold of unreasonable behaviour, and awarded Mrs A her full costs in the sum of £331.80, which he said was a very reasonable figure.

My case has the same facsimile signature on a very late 'witness statement' from a person who was not a witness. It is a templated statement and 'Jack' from UKCPM is not here to be cross examined, being conspicuous by his absence.

I would like to ask that the case is dismissed with no relief from sanctions and that my full costs are granted on the indemnity basis, including (as well as my ordinary costs for attendance) my hours of time at the Litigant in Person rate (£19 per hour for xx hours spent in extensive research, reading reams of cut & paste template Gladstones paperwork and preparing my own documents and evidence).

I ask that these full costs on the indemnity basis are granted, in accordance with the CPRs where a party's conduct is 'wholly unreasonable' with no reasonable explanation.

Callisto1610

Wow! Thanks for this @Coupon-mad.

I haven't put the cost schedule yet. For some reason I thought I can do that on the day itself

Coupon-mad

What happened and which court were you at?

Callisto1610

TL,DR: I won. Thanks to everyone here!

Longer version:
It was in Watford court. The other party didn't turn up. The hearing was at 10 but rolled over to 2nd batch of hearings to 2pm. The judge despite the late serving and filing of the claimants WS still proceeded. Also ignored the fact of counterfeit signature of "Jack". Basically asked me questions about whether I had the permit all the time before and after the incident. I was a bit worrying to say yes as I read another topic here that someone lost the case as soon as he said "yes". But I think the judge was trying to see if it was only this case they I shouldn't have been punished. I have also pointed out that in my tenancy agreement there is no obligation to show a permit. In the end he said the case is dismissed, I couldn't really understand on what reasons, but I was happy it was over. I guess I will know when I receive the court papers next week.

Coupon-mad

You won't, because that just gives a one liner that you won and the claim was dismissed, not why.

Did you get your costs? You needed to ask at the time.

VERY well done - another one bites the dust!