We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
F0GF1K4A proudsonofduck wins vs UK CPM/Gladstones 10/3/2020
Options
proudsonofduck
Posts: 13 Forumite
Apologies some of my recollection may be a little hazy and the chronology could quite well be a little muddled
Given it was dry yesterday I decided to walk to the court (this is an important detail to be recalled later!). Arrived at about 9.40 for my 10am hearing. Signed in with the usher and sat in the waiting room.
Of the dozen or so cases due up in front of DJ's Ellis and Harvey that day, five were parking companies, three of them UKCPM.
After about an hour the waiting room had emptied out and it was just me, I spoke to the usher who informed me that UKCPM wouldn't be attending and it seemed they were not going to be sending any reps so it was just the judge and I. A little while later the usher informed me that as DJ Ellis was over-running so my case was going to be heard by another judge (I forgot to ask but have since identified it was DJ Harvey).
Five minutes later I was taken to his chambers by the usher. I greeted him with a polite 'hello sir' and he went straight into things:
"I see the main thrust of your defence is with regards to Abuse of Process, I have a transcript of the relevant hearing here..."
For some reason I got a little paranoid that he was going to say he disagreed with other judges who have been striking cases out, or worse there had been some development since I submitted my WS that meant this line of defence was now null and void - as such I said that was one arm of my defence, but since reading the claimant's WS I felt there were some other important areas of my defence I would like to discuss and politely asked if I could talk about Proprietary Interest (PI), which he agreed to. He spent a couple of minutes reading the relevant documents and then invited me to share with him my thoughts on their documentation.
UKCPM/Gladstone's had supplied two documents as evidence of PI - I pointed out that the first document (a photocopied 'Service Agreement' on UKCPM headed paper) had not been completed, not been signed and didn't have the name of any person or company on it (just the address of the land in question) - the judge agreed and essentially said it was a worthless piece of evidence as there was no way for the court to determine who the agreement was with and it was dated 9 years before the alleged incident (I had already informed him that the current landowner acquired the property in 2017)
The second document was a 'Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement' on UKCPM headed paper and seemingly an original. I pointed out that the document wasn't signed but most importantly the date of Commencement of this 'contract' was 10 MONTHS AFTER the alleged infringement! Therefore by their own evidence they had no right to enforce parking charges!
This seemed to really annoy the judge - he said that UKCPM/Gladstones either did know or should have known this 'contract' was not valid and they had deliberately included it hoping that the detail wasn't picked up by the overworked court system and in his view it was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.
We then moved on to signage, I showed him the location of their signs and explained how I felt the location and size of font were inadequate. I also showed him the signs next to the visitor bay and explained how these signs inferred different terms and conditions to UKCPM's signs. He agreed that as I had been parked in a Visitor Bay and the signage quite clearly said two hours parking then it was entirely reasonable to park in that spot for two hours for free, given that the claimant had not demonstrated that the vehicle had stayed longer than two hours there was no evidence of any breach of the Ts and Cs. However he felt that wasn't really relevant because the signage was so inadequate so there could be no contract to begin with.
After about 30 mins he called things to a halt and began his summing up:
The facts are...visitor bay is common ground...one would expect two hours free parking and no evidence to show an overstay...inadequate signage on an concrete lintel above the entrance road which one would need binoculars to read (at this point I had to try really hard not to burst out laughing)
Then he really started laying into them - the witnesses evidence is unhelpful, it is evidently a cut and paste document which seems to be common practice with these operators, that they just cite long tracts from other cases that are completely irrelevant to the case and do not attempt to address the defence, that the evidence of landowner agreement is completely unsatisfactory, he was skeptical of any validity and if Gladstones want courts to read their documents properly then he suggests they should do so themselves!
He then moved on to abuse of process and began taking the court through the Britannia Parking case (I think), Judge Jones-Evans summary and Judge Grands orders. He read at length from Judge Grand's summary and reeled off all of the relevant stuff - POFA, CRA, PE vs Beavis. He was in complete agreement that this was an abuse of process, that the claimant was trying to add illegal costs, was trying to mislead and was in contempt of court, that this was an abuse of the court's jurisdiction, that Mr Chapman should not be producing this document and wasting the court's time with it.
We then went on to my costs, he felt the claimant's behaviour was evidently unreasonable therefore would allow further costs under CPR 27.14.
I then went on to point out that because I had walked and not driven it would be unreasonable of me to claim the £11.44 for mileage and parking that I had originally asked for in my schedule of costs and asked for them to be removed. He agreed to this but then went on to say that I had seemingly under claimed for loss of leave and helped me to add £76.92 to my schedule - £293.02 to be paid within 14 days
I stood up, started to pack my things away and said to him I expect he will see a few more of Jack Chapman's witness statement's before the end of the day and they are likely to be of equal quality, to which he smiled and bid me goodbye.
Once again a big thank you to the regular posters and those who guide and help us - couldn't have done it without your dedication and knowledge
Given it was dry yesterday I decided to walk to the court (this is an important detail to be recalled later!). Arrived at about 9.40 for my 10am hearing. Signed in with the usher and sat in the waiting room.
Of the dozen or so cases due up in front of DJ's Ellis and Harvey that day, five were parking companies, three of them UKCPM.
After about an hour the waiting room had emptied out and it was just me, I spoke to the usher who informed me that UKCPM wouldn't be attending and it seemed they were not going to be sending any reps so it was just the judge and I. A little while later the usher informed me that as DJ Ellis was over-running so my case was going to be heard by another judge (I forgot to ask but have since identified it was DJ Harvey).
Five minutes later I was taken to his chambers by the usher. I greeted him with a polite 'hello sir' and he went straight into things:
"I see the main thrust of your defence is with regards to Abuse of Process, I have a transcript of the relevant hearing here..."
For some reason I got a little paranoid that he was going to say he disagreed with other judges who have been striking cases out, or worse there had been some development since I submitted my WS that meant this line of defence was now null and void - as such I said that was one arm of my defence, but since reading the claimant's WS I felt there were some other important areas of my defence I would like to discuss and politely asked if I could talk about Proprietary Interest (PI), which he agreed to. He spent a couple of minutes reading the relevant documents and then invited me to share with him my thoughts on their documentation.
UKCPM/Gladstone's had supplied two documents as evidence of PI - I pointed out that the first document (a photocopied 'Service Agreement' on UKCPM headed paper) had not been completed, not been signed and didn't have the name of any person or company on it (just the address of the land in question) - the judge agreed and essentially said it was a worthless piece of evidence as there was no way for the court to determine who the agreement was with and it was dated 9 years before the alleged incident (I had already informed him that the current landowner acquired the property in 2017)
The second document was a 'Parking Enforcement Contractual Agreement' on UKCPM headed paper and seemingly an original. I pointed out that the document wasn't signed but most importantly the date of Commencement of this 'contract' was 10 MONTHS AFTER the alleged infringement! Therefore by their own evidence they had no right to enforce parking charges!
This seemed to really annoy the judge - he said that UKCPM/Gladstones either did know or should have known this 'contract' was not valid and they had deliberately included it hoping that the detail wasn't picked up by the overworked court system and in his view it was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.
We then moved on to signage, I showed him the location of their signs and explained how I felt the location and size of font were inadequate. I also showed him the signs next to the visitor bay and explained how these signs inferred different terms and conditions to UKCPM's signs. He agreed that as I had been parked in a Visitor Bay and the signage quite clearly said two hours parking then it was entirely reasonable to park in that spot for two hours for free, given that the claimant had not demonstrated that the vehicle had stayed longer than two hours there was no evidence of any breach of the Ts and Cs. However he felt that wasn't really relevant because the signage was so inadequate so there could be no contract to begin with.
After about 30 mins he called things to a halt and began his summing up:
The facts are...visitor bay is common ground...one would expect two hours free parking and no evidence to show an overstay...inadequate signage on an concrete lintel above the entrance road which one would need binoculars to read (at this point I had to try really hard not to burst out laughing)
Then he really started laying into them - the witnesses evidence is unhelpful, it is evidently a cut and paste document which seems to be common practice with these operators, that they just cite long tracts from other cases that are completely irrelevant to the case and do not attempt to address the defence, that the evidence of landowner agreement is completely unsatisfactory, he was skeptical of any validity and if Gladstones want courts to read their documents properly then he suggests they should do so themselves!
He then moved on to abuse of process and began taking the court through the Britannia Parking case (I think), Judge Jones-Evans summary and Judge Grands orders. He read at length from Judge Grand's summary and reeled off all of the relevant stuff - POFA, CRA, PE vs Beavis. He was in complete agreement that this was an abuse of process, that the claimant was trying to add illegal costs, was trying to mislead and was in contempt of court, that this was an abuse of the court's jurisdiction, that Mr Chapman should not be producing this document and wasting the court's time with it.
We then went on to my costs, he felt the claimant's behaviour was evidently unreasonable therefore would allow further costs under CPR 27.14.
I then went on to point out that because I had walked and not driven it would be unreasonable of me to claim the £11.44 for mileage and parking that I had originally asked for in my schedule of costs and asked for them to be removed. He agreed to this but then went on to say that I had seemingly under claimed for loss of leave and helped me to add £76.92 to my schedule - £293.02 to be paid within 14 days
I stood up, started to pack my things away and said to him I expect he will see a few more of Jack Chapman's witness statement's before the end of the day and they are likely to be of equal quality, to which he smiled and bid me goodbye.
Once again a big thank you to the regular posters and those who guide and help us - couldn't have done it without your dedication and knowledge
15
Comments
-
Well done, you zapped the incompetent Gladstones. Worthing seems to be tuned into the scam
Who was the judge and how much were you awarded please.
This is perfect for the abuse of process thread part 2 so look forward to your court report
It is also worth a complaint to the SRA about the Gladstones scam, I understand they are being investigated at the moment
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems.page
3 -
Ideally this should have been posted on your existing thread if it is for the same case, but well done on your win.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks2 -
Details added above
3 -
Hi FC,
Apologies you are right
Should I delete my other thread or can they be merged?
0 -
I wonder if it was judge Mark Harvey who a few of us have spoken to. A very nice man.proudsonofduck said:Hi BG,
Apologies but I don't know the judge's name.
It was supposed to be Ellis but the court switched it last minute and I forgot to ask.
Awarded £293.02 to be paid within 14 days- the judge even advised me I had underclaimed and helped me work out an additional £76.92.
I will come back and add more details when I have them.
UKCPM had 3 cases at Worthing this morning and didn't send anybody along. Ironic given that it's about 3 miles from their head office.
Unfortunately I don't think the defendants turned up for the other 2 cases so they might win on default.
UKCPM would not attended themselves, doubt they would know how to make a cup of tea. It would be Gladstones who instruct a "rent by the hour" legal type.
What a disgrace Gladstones are, they make the SRA look like a kids operation and with the remarks give by the judge, these should be conveyed to the SRA
The court case number will be helpful for others to reference it
Enjoy your £293.022 -
GLADSTONES SPANKED AGAIN, THIS TIME BY THE WORTHING COURT ?
Now in the Abuse of process thread part 2
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1
3 -
Please please please send a HUGE complaint about Gladstones to the SRA
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/
Let us try to do these dodgy legals as much damage as we can . Their conduct sure brings their profession into disrepute.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.3 -
Pretty sure it was Judge Harvey
Claim number F0GF1K4A
How does one go about getting a transcript of the judgement? I want to make sure that when I share the details they are 100% accurate.
Also want to ensure my complaint to the SRA includes direct quote from the Judge.
3 -
You have to pay the court to get a transcript. Only you and I believe the claimant are eligible to do this, and I don't think it is cheap.
Whilst it would be useful, nobody here will expect you to shell out for a transcript.
However, if you can give us your own eye witness account that would really help.
Don't worry about the other thread but perhaps you could edit the title and add a post with a link to this thread.
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks2 -
ParkingMad and I think this was DJ Harvey...let's just say some local Judges have got the Southampton transcript.
So Brighton, Worthing and Lewes Courts should at least look at the CRA 2015 even if the D doesn't mention it. Even a D who doesn't turn up should at least see £60 crossed off the claim.
There is nothing to stop any reader here, from sending their local Judge or court, the Southampton full transcript (longer version of the hearing) and the Approved Judgment (6 pages by DJ Grand) and put an anonymous covering summary or 'Brief' stating that the attached information is provided for the area Judges to circulate, for any private parking charge case.
Sign it off 'amicus curiae':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae#:~:text=An%20amicus%20curiae%20(literally%2C%20%22,the%20form%20of%20a%20brief.
Worst that can happen is they bin it.
Best that can happen, they read it and realise that they should be applying s71 of the CRA in all cases, even if a D doesn't turn up.
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards