County Court Claim Form Gladstones/UKCPM

brentmeister2k

Thank you coupon mad, I will expand my Ws to include this. 

I read in your post about telephone hearings the advise to complain to sra but opinion seemed to be split on whether it was worth it. If its worth it then I will definitely do that as well. 

D_P_Dance

 the advise to complain to sra but opinion seemed to be split on whether it was worth it. 

AFAIAA, no-one on here thinks that it is not worth it.  

Coupon-mad

Every single person who posts about a UKCPM WS, has been told to report Gs to the SRA about this specific matter in ALL UKCPM cases.  No exceptions, and the SRA are actively investigating and will add your evidence to the file.

Previous threads have given the exact wording to use, including headings to identify Gladstones properly and the name and email of the person at the SRA to email the WS to, with your complaint.

brentmeister2k

OK thanks everyone will make complaint to the SRA.
I have revised witness statement, attached below. Points 10 -13 cover the issue regarding signage.
Should I mention anywhere about referring complaint to the SRA?
Given I have not received formal notification that it will telephone hearing I assume that I am to proceed as per normal for now and meet the deadline of 7th May for delivering my WS, however I will complete the email and bundle inline with guidance in Coupon Mads thread. Any feedback on revised WS, attached docs that I propose to include below, any thing I'm missing or any other guidance/feedback appreciated and welcome Thank you for all guidance so far.

Still feel a bit bling going into this and like I am winging it totally so a bit unsure about the whole thing but not got too much too lose so it's worth the risk as far as I am concerned to waste the scammers time and hopefully cost them money and if I ultimately win it will make it all the sweeter.

Umkomaas

Ordinary Costs Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Court xx/yy/yyyy £150

Maximum (capped) loss of earnings/leave for half a day is £95. Take payslips to the hearing, or copy to the Judge (only, no need for the Claimant to view) if a one the papers' or telephone hearing, to prove earnings level. You're unlikely to get loss of earnings/leave without proof. 

brentmeister2k

Thanks umk and noted

Coupon-mad

OK, you are doing really well!

Change the title of the costs document to SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENT and sign & date it.

Add in as an extra exhibit, the ParkingEye v Beavis case sign (yellow & Black P/Eye sign - Google images has it).  Use that as a comparison for these signs.

Add as another exhibit, this evidence of the facsimile Jack Chapman signatures and mention in a couple of extra paragraphs, your complaint about Gladstones that has joined hundreds of others and that the SRA are currently investigating:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vA0Th8whB8c6YUYQ3EwLouYv5Xy09xxt/view

As you covered the matter of the £60 add-on in detail in your December defence, you don't need the 'Supplementary WS' at all because that will be repetition.  We will be seeing more like this and the Supplementary WS will not be needed by a lot of posters from now on.  So you just need to briefly mention those releveant 'abuse of process' exhibits at the start of your WS, like this:

Witness Statement

1. I am xxxxxx xxxxxxxx of xxxx {address} xxxx the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. My defence is appended and repeated. In support, I append the following evidence:

   Exhibits A and B relate to the matter of the inadequate signage - a photograph of a standard 45cm square OPS sign compared to Exhibit C, the notably very different ‘prominent and large lettering with the parking charge in the largest font’ sign accepted by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015].

   exhibit D  – the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA') Sch2 is appended and the court’s attention is drawn to its duty in s71 and must consider the breaches of paras 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the appended schedule of terms that are likely to be unfair.   Exhibit E – re the matter of the abuse of process of the Claimant adding a false 'costs' sum of £60, the case of Britannia Parking v Crosby (Southampton Court application hearing following a strike-out order) is appended.  My case is the same in this regard.

3. The facts are that my wife, my 2 year old daughter and I were visiting the Chatham Dockyard shopping centre for the first time on 26/08/18, I was driving vehicle registration XXX XXX.  We intended to visit for circa 30 minutes as we were only planning to visit one shop to purchase some shoes for my Daughter.
   

4. 
   

______________

At the end you need the new April 2020 Statement of Truth as I have shown below, and I would add more words to your final paragraph which will end up at a higher number than 14, once you've added the info about the complaint to the SRA and Jack Chapman's facsimile signature:

xx. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my full costs as summarily assessed (attached), such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14, due to the long list of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.  This includes but is not limited to:
(i) unclear signs at the car park in 2018 with no regard paid to the CRA requirements for prominence and transparency;
(ii) producing misleading signage evidence with the sign altered;
(iii) adding a false and unrecoverable £60 sum to the claim (abuse of process);
(iv) producing a putative 'witness' statement which has almost no probative value, being a cut & paste template of errors, hearsay commentary and prolix legal argument churned out by freelance statement writers for Gladstones solicitors without any regard for the principles outlined in JD Wetherspoon plc v Harris [2013] EWRC 1088 and in the knowledge that the purported signatory will not attend (hearsay and witness statement abuse).

Statement of Truth: 

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature

Date

brentmeister2k

Thank you so much Coupon mad, am following your advice but a little stuck and just need a bit of a steer. I've put my actions taken and where my queries are in bold against each of the points of guidance below.

Change the title of the costs document to SUMMARY COSTS ASSESSMENT and sign & date it. Done and also amended the daily earnings amount to within threshold.

Add in as an extra exhibit, the ParkingEye v Beavis case sign (yellow & Black P/Eye sign - Google images has it).  Use that as a comparison for these signs. I have found and attached as Exhibit C - I have added text you recommended but unsure if I need to say anything, revised WS below taking onboard your suggestions. Unclear if what you have suggested below re: exhibit A, B and C is sufficient please see my WS and advise?

Add as another exhibit, this evidence of the facsimile Jack Chapman signatures and mention in a couple of extra paragraphs, your complaint about Gladstones that has joined hundreds of others and that the SRA are currently investigating:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vA0Th8whB8c6YUYQ3EwLouYv5Xy09xxt/view I have found this and titled Exhibit F - I am unclear on the paras to add - any guidance- I believe there is a thread but cannot locate to find the correct wording can anybody direct me?

As you covered the matter of the £60 add-on in detail in your December defence, you don't need the 'Supplementary WS' at all because that will be repetition.  We will be seeing more like this and the Supplementary WS will not be needed by a lot of posters from now on.  So you just need to briefly mention those releveant 'abuse of process' exhibits at the start of your WS, like this: Perfect and I've amended to bring in your suggested para's and renamed docs to match exhibit lettering.

Coupon-mad

There are close to100 Jack Chapman threads since 2019 to copy from thir WS wording and their SRA complaint wording, but check of course that YOUR Jack C signature does match the ones you are showing the court, of course!

And whoops, sorry I didn't mean this!  Wrong PPC!

a photograph of a standard 45cm square OPS  the UKCPM signs, where one has (...what?  a sticker?)...and has been amended (you need to explain the dates of the photos and the issue with A and .

brentmeister2k

Thanks will find the JAck Chapman text.
I'm still not clear what I am saying in reference to Exhibit C- The parking eye image?