County Court Letter – Defence against Gladstones (UKCPM)

zeljko

Hi,
still waiting information  from court about hearing which need to happen tomorrow 10am.
I gave them a call and they promise to send email with all info end of today. Little to late if hearing is already tomorrow, this will be less that 24h.

zeljko

Hi,
I won this one...but no any costs award.
Case was dismiss on base Claimant (Elizabeth Mew Resident Co LTD) do not own any land so they are not the landowner so there is no landowner authority.
For add 60GBP judge asked me to explain why I think this is breach CRA. After I point superm court case decision Bevis, he told me that this is old and there is appeal against this also I can see this in WS from Gladstones.
No any costs award, as I am not traveling and I need to demonstrated that hearing impact my normal working hours and this will reduce my salary.
Judge asked me to explain why I think this is an abuse of process and to demonstrated why is claimant "unlawful". I try to read some points from my WS but look like judge dismiss this.
Try to demonstrated that Claimant WS statement of true wasn't written or witness by Alexandra Morrison who is not present and is not real person, but  judge dismiss this.
Noone from Gladstone was present for this hearing and judge wanted to ask them about landowner authority.
Also Judge did not have my WS and I needed to resend it again. I talked with Reading court 2 days before hearing and they confirmed that WS and defence is correctly file on court. Hearing  was done by Slough Court, maybe they did not transfer  it.
But I sent hard printed copy and email to appointment Reading court.

Were_Doomed

Well done on your win. Another One Bites The Dust!

It's a shame that so many judges are bamboozled by the Semark-Julien appeal, and don't seem to realise what that appeal actually was, and specifically that a County Court appeal simply cannot overrule a Supreme Court case judgment. 🙄

zeljko

Were_Doomed said:

Well done on your win. Another One Bites The Dust!

It's a shame that so many judges are bamboozled by the Semark-Julien appeal, and don't seem to realise what that appeal actually was, and specifically that a County Court appeal simply cannot overrule a Supreme Court case judgment. 🙄

Myself did not know this, Judge just told me this is old case and it is overrule, asked if I have any further questions about this, but I just say no Sir....

beamerguy

zeljko said:

For add 60GBP judge asked me to explain why I think this is breach CRA. After I point superm court case decision Bevis, he told me that this is old and there is appeal against this also I can see this in WS from Gladstones.

Very good well done.   Unsure what the judge meant about the above.  The Beavis case is set in stone and as far as I know, there is no appeal happening on this case ?  If he is referring to the Salisbury appeal, that is done and dusted and does not mean anything

So, the incompetent Gladstones failed to show their face again.  Such a joke of a company

D_P_Dance

IMO the judge erred in law wrt  the added £60.  IIMU that it is unlawful,   Whether you fight this is your choice but  Iwuld certainly do so.  How many other cases will this judge get wrong I wonder.

beamerguy

D_P_Dance said:

IMO the judge erred in law wrt  the added £60.  IIMU that it is unlawful,   Whether you fight this is your choice but  Iwuld certainly do so.  How many other cases will this judge get wrong I wonder.

We are certainly seeing a number of CC Judges who seem very ignorant

zeljko

D_P_Dance said:

IMO the judge erred in law wrt  the added £60.  IIMU that it is unlawful,   Whether you fight this is your choice but  Iwuld certainly do so.  How many other cases will this judge get wrong I wonder.

Judge told me did I read this from Claimant WS:

Coupon-mad

Yes, but that was simply an appeal aiming to reset a case back to a hearing, and the Salisbury case didn't make a finding either way about adding fake costs (double recovery).  Our WS examples cover this case now.  It's nothing.

beamerguy

The interpretation of the Salisbury appeal differs from judge to judge
It is however simple to understand.
The appeals judge was saying that cases cannot be dismissed simply because of the £60
The appeals judge said that this was never in the Beavis case.   Well of course not , that case was only about the fairness of the Parking Eye charge of £80. The Supreme court ruled it was fair as it covered the costs to operate the scheme.  That means from start to finish, the parking charge remains the same and all costs are included.

However, this means that judges will be looking for other parts of the claim such as signs and double recovery.  In your case, the judge wanted to question the land authority and if Gladstones had turned up the chances were very high that he would have dismissed the case anyway.

It is amazing that this legal spent so much time and effort trying to prove something which is just a damp squib ........... and they never turned up ??