County Court Claim Form Gladstones/UKCPM

Coupon-mad

Change the wording in the covering email to make sense regarding the Order you've received.  Refer to the Order in your covering email, and decide if you are saying you object to the telephone hearing and why (if so, such as if a person is a keyworker or the sole supervisor of young children at home 24/7).

And if you already sent your WS and evidence electronically no need to append that again, but you will if the court Order says the Judge does not have access to the case file and you previously posted it.

brentmeister2k

Yes the order does say to send evidence and Ws again as a bundle.  

One point I was a bit confused on there is info on the telephone thread about a joint bundle, my order doesn't mention agreeing a joint bundle, If I had to do that I assume it would be clear in the order? 

Johnersh

It would be helpful to try and do so, because if there are two bundles there are two page #1s etc.  One bundle, sequentially numbered with documents each side relies upon will help everybody 

Coupon-mad

However, because this is Gladstones and they keep dropping the ball with telephone hearings, I'd not be liaising with or prompting them.  Just do what the Order tells you to do, and let Gs stew!

brentmeister2k

I've rewritten the email it is now greatly reduced as follows:

Dear District Judge XXXX,

Re: Claim number XXXX - hearing date set for XX/XX/2020

Important Preliminary matter and Witness statement and evidence from the Defendant

(served by email due to COVID_19 measures)

I am the Defendant.  The appended witness statement and evidence bundle, as well as this covering email, has also been sent to the Claimant's litigation team. In the event of directions for a future hearing in person at this court, hard copies will be provided when I have access to a printer.

Preliminary matter

I am aware that there is more than sufficient information available in this case to activate the court's duty, as set out in s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA').  

The CRA imposes a duty upon courts in all consumer contract cases, to apply the test of fairness in s71 of the CRA and I draw specific attention to more than one breach of CRA Schedule 2, as explained in my witness statement. Due to this, and to remove an unnecessary burden on the court, I invite the Judge to exercise the court's case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4, to strike this claim out without a hearing in any format.   

This has already occurred in multiple parking claims in recent months, with duplicate reasons used by Judges sitting at courts as widely spread as Southampton, Warwick, IOW, Caernarfon, Luton and Skipton.  Failed applications with hearings attended by two barristers acting on behalf of parking firms have taken place at Skipton (February 2020, before District Judge Faye Wright) as well as at Southampton, before District Judge Grand.  I refer to my exhibit transcript of the Approved Judgment in Britannia Parking Ltd v Crosby and Anor (11/11/2019) which pays regard to the Supreme Court binding case law and the duty on the courts to invoke s71 of the CRA.

This parking charge claim has been deliberately exaggerated to reach a global sum of £160 despite the Claimant and their legal advisers being well aware by now, that such a sum is unrecoverable in parking charge cases because it is an attempt to go behind case law and statute law, and taints the entire claim.  As such, the Defendant draws attention to the Claimant's continued 'forum shopping' and their clear intention of finding victims who will pay in full without defending, or a less than competent court to allow them to claim a sum far higher than they can lawfully recover. 

Further, there has been no serious attempt to comply with the CPRs and the Claimant's incoherent, stylised particulars do not constitute compliance.  These cases unnecessarily delay and clutter court listings and represent a contemptuous and significant abuse of process.

To assist with the efficient disposal of the case, I attach an editable Word Document Draft Order.

 

There has been no serious attempt by the claimant to comply with the CPRs and the Claimant's incoherent, stylised particulars do not constitute compliance.  These cases unnecessarily delay and clutter court listings and represent a contemptuous and significant abuse of process.

To assist with the efficient disposal of the case, I attach an editable Word Document Draft Order.

yours sincerely, 

Brentmeister2k

Documents appended herewith:

- Draft Order 

A single PDF file containing:

- Trial bundle contents page (with page and exhibit numbering clearly set out)

- signed/dated witness statement

- Exhibits A, B and C comparison photos of relevant signs detailed in Witness Statement

- Exhibit D  - Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 (with paras 6, 10, 14 and 18 highighted)

- Exhibit E - Britannia v Crosby & Anor - Approved Judgment

- Exhibit F - Jack Chapman "signature" examples.

brentmeister2k

Thanks again for guidance so far, any views on whether I can or should include the below items. Not previously included in WS or exhibits:

Supreme Court Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 (copied onto a page in full, and give this link too):

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

- ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 - (quote para 419 re adding £60 & give bailii link):

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html#para419

- the POFA Schedule 4 with 4(5) highlighted plus the link:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Coupon-mad

Yes include all of those.  And a copy of your defence because it's possible the court Judge may not have access to the existing case file if working from home.

You repeated this whole section twice:

There has been no serious attempt by the claimant to comply with the CPRs and the Claimant's incoherent, stylised particulars do not constitute compliance.  These cases unnecessarily delay and clutter court listings and represent a contemptuous and significant abuse of process.
To assist with the efficient disposal of the case, I attach an editable Word Document Draft Order.

Why doesn't the covering email refer to the Order at the start, as I said it should?

  Refer to the Order in your covering email

No need to use the hearding about COVID and why you are serving the stuff by email if the Order told you to, because you are merely doing what you were told.  Where is your phone number in that email, I'd add it now to make sure the Court have yours even if Gs drop the ball!

brentmeister2k

OK Got all of that only 1 query remaining and then ready to email docs tonight.

Can I please clarify how I link in the 3 additional docs that you've said I should, copied again below to avoid confusion - They are not mentioned in my WS or defence and not sure how I link them in here? Is it acceptable to bring them up in my covering email for example and even if I do I'm not sure I know what to say about them or if I will even have time to do the work on looking into each before I need to submit?

Supreme Court Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 (copied onto a page in full, and give this link too):

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-judgment.pdf

- ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 - (quote para 419 re adding £60 & give bailii link):

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html#para419

- the POFA Schedule 4 with 4(5) highlighted plus the link:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Le_Kirk

That's evidence and it should already be referred to in Witness Statement or supplementary WS.

brentmeister2k

OK I've sussed a couple of bits - 

The Beavis Cas and POFA schedule 4 are referenced in draft order so OK with those.
The PE Vs Somerfield Stores I'm still stumped by as can't see that referenced in any of my docs - Can anyone help?