Letter Before claim from Gladstones Solicitors

IKG

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I'm a lady, but good evening to you too!

Apologise


And email the SRA now:



To: report@sra.org.uk


FTAO The Investigation Officers
Solicitors Regulation Authority

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Gladstones Solicitors Limited, Warrington Road, High Legh, Knutsford, WA16 6AA (SRA ID 559050)

I wish to lodge a complaint about the above firm.

Gladstones are acting for a parking firm - Hounslow Enforcement limited - and as part of the pre-action phase, on 1st November 2019 they replied to my notification that I had requested a Subject Access request for all data and photographic evidence from their client. I had requested a data processing hiatus under my rights as set out in the GDPR and with regard to the pre-action protocol for debt claims. Gladstones stated on 1st November:

''We refer to your request regarding the restriction of processing of data. Unfortunately we cannot process your request because we can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing of your data which override the interests, rights and freedoms of you as an individual. That legitimate interest being that we are acting on behalf of our client for the recovery of monies relating to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice.

To process your data is necessary and lawful, as it is required in furtherance of our client's instructions, and we act for them on their rights and obligations for the recovery of such monies.

We will however extend the Pre Action Protocol period by 30 days to 3rd
December 2019.''

On 11th November, before I had even received any evidence from their client, Gladstones issued a claim anyway.

I attach a copy of that email and their claim form.

When I protested that my rights under the GDPR, DPA 2018 and the pre-action protocol for debt claims had been prejudiced, Gladstones issued this dismissive response:

''Good morning,

As mentioned in my previous email, this was an admin error that a claim was issued- I have confirmed to you that no further action will take place on your file until after the extension of the 3rd December, and the balance of £160.00 still stands until the 3rd December 2019, if you do not make payment by this date then we will continue with the Court procedure.

In light of the above, no prejudice has been suffered by you as the amount and time frame for you to respond still stands.''

This ambiguous reply could mean that they have discontinued the claim and that we are back in the pre-action phase, and that I can safely await the SAR from Hounslow Enforcement so that I can consider my position with the information that the pre-action protocol is designed to produce. But they have actually said ''if you do not make payment by this date then we will continue with the Court procedure''.

What can this mean, and how can a premature claim be an 'admin error' when they are meant to be operating on their client's instructions, and that client knows that I have requested a SAR and that they cannot possibly file a claim during that phase of data production.

This reply looks as if Gladstones are preparing to obtain a default judgment for what they have admitted is a premature claim, if I fail to defend by 3rd December. Yet I have not yet been furnished with the usual requirements of evidence and data that the pre-action protocol and the GDPR requires.

I feel bullied and unsure as to my legal position as a victim of a Gladstones roboclaim. It looks like they are leaving the premature claim filed and that even without the SAR results, I am expected to pay up or submit a defence with no information, by 3rd December, after which they seem to be saying they will enforce the claim.

Further, they are operating what appears to be a cartel, aided and abetted by the IPC Trade Body (United Trade & Industry Ltd., Company number 08248531) with whom Gladstones shared Directors until they were outed in the public domain and to all intents and purposes 'rectified' that conflict of interests position. They and the IPC encourage their member parking firms to unlawfully add £60 to every claim, despite this being disallowed by two statute laws (Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) and the ParkingEye v Beavis binding precedent, where paras 98, 193 and 198 repeated three times that a parking firm's charge already includes all the costs of the operation.

I believe this conduct and the woeful email response that leaves me (as a Litigant in person) completely unsure whether they have discontinued the premature and inflated claim or not, must be in breach of the SRA's standards or requirements.

If you need any further information please email me or you can telephone xxxxx xxxxxxx.

yours faithfully,

thank you @coupan-mad :A

IKG

A very late evening all........just to update you that SRA email has beens sent and just waiting to hear back from them.

in the meantime just preparing the defence and will update the draft for your input.

thanks

IKG

EFENCES
EXCEPT IN PARKINGEYE CASES, people can use bargepole's concise defence then add your own facts as point #2, then as #3, something about the non-prominent signage, then as #4, something about 'no proprietary interest/landowner authority', then continue as below for the rest...

coupan-mad i am unable to locate the four points form the bause thread #14.....please tell me where can i find that ?

Coupon-mad

You mean the 3 points from the Abuse of Process thread?

No link given, it's a thread started by beamerguy so easy to find by clicking on his username like you would to find any thread or post by a named forum member.

Le_Kirk

IKG wrote: »

A very late evening all........just to update you that SRA email has beens sent and just waiting to hear back from them.

Any company has 30 days to respond to a SAR, so you are right to carry on with your defence. The results of the SAR will likely be more useful to you when writing your witness statement.

IKG

hi everyone just wanted to check as i am still in process of drafting the defence.......i don't need to submit it by 3rd december right? thanks

KeithP

In post #38 above I thought it was clear that...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 16th December 2019 to file your Defence.

...but that depends on a timely filing of an Acknowledgment of Service.

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service - as detailed in post #38 above?
If not - do it now - tonight.

Has anything changed?

No response from the SRA?

No further response from Gladstones?

The claim is still live, is it?

IKG

KeithP wrote: »

In post #38 above I thought it was clear that...

...but that depends on a timely filing of an Acknowledgment of Service.

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service - as detailed in post #38 above?
If not - do it now - tonight.

Has anything changed?

No response from the SRA?

No further response from Gladstones?

The claim is still live, is it?

keithp......when i contacted gladstone they said the claim form was sent in error so i didn't send the acknowledgement

no response from SRA or no further response gladstones

KeithP

IKG wrote: »

keithp......when i contacted gladstone they said the claim form was sent in error so i didn't send the acknowledgement

This is serious - you have a live claim.

Do the AoS now.

Otherwise tomorrow I foresee you facing a Default Judgment.

Unless of course you have confirmation from the CCBC that the Claim has been discontinued. Do you have that confirmation?
Check on MCOL claim history for status.


Did you send the second email to Gladstones that C-M suggested? - the one she wrote for you in post #71 above?


Anyway, where is your Defence?
On 22nd November you wrote:

...in the meantime just preparing the defence and will update the draft for your input.

IKG

refer to #66 with gladstone's response