Telephone Hearing at short notice, UKCPM Gladstones

zhonguonuren

I might have to sue Mr John L G Davies as director (tort of deceit - I know it’s a limited company he hides behind).  I want to meet that man!

nosferatu1001

Does that tort pierce the corporate veil?

beamerguy

zhonguonuren said:

Gymbunnie said:

Just got sent telephone conference info, Gladstones have a Charleen Buchanan-Shill from Elms Legal Ltd Sleaford, representing them, Right of audience??

Interested though.  If Gladstones are based in High Legh and it is a telephone hearing, why can’t they use their in-house lawyers?  They are supposed to have a couple because they are listed on the SRA website - including the infamous John Llewelyn Gladstone Davies himself?  

The said person part of the Pinky and Perky scam setup, Perky being the IPC, Gladstones fires the sh*t to Elms without due care and attention.

Here is a recent case by Excel using Elms Legal.   Elms got beaten up by the judge and spat out

 EXCEL with the help of Elms Legal got spanked for 3 failures
Caspar7 was in Nottingham CC today in front of Judge Lam.    IT' WAS A WIN
Again EXCEL added the fake £60 and again Judge Lam said it was unlawful
A 3 POINT FAILURE BY EXCEL and the spanking included the fake £60
READ THE FULL STORY HERE
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5995545/county-court-claim-form-from-excel-parking-services/p12

zhonguonuren

nosferatu1001 said:

Does that tort pierce the corporate veil?

It has a good old peep behind it

BrownTrout

You dont see Tort of deceit cases very often and never seen them mentioned on here but one wonders if they have an application in relation to companies like UCS - DRP - DCBL who make fake false statements in their letters which then result in a them paying their parking charge notice as a result of a false statement on their letter.....
However is quite a complicated area and some interesting cases 
https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/publications/brief-walker-morris-legal-update-may-2016/claims-deceit-points-note/

Umkomaas

From (hazy) memory, the last reference I read of 'tort of deceit' in the context of private parking was in the ParkingEye v Somerfield case. 

https://7kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ParkingEye_2013-Q.B.-840_1_1.pdf

Coupon-mad

Gymbunnie said:

Delivering Documents

(the Judge may not have access to the Court file)
12. The Claimant shall no later than 4pm on the day before the hearing deliver to the Court and to each party electronically a bundle in PDF format, which must include:
(a) a case summary and chronology;
(b) the parties’ position statements;
(c) the previous orders that are relevant to the remote hearing;
(d) the application relevant to the remote hearing;
(d) all essential documents that the court requires to determine the issues that fall for determination at the remote hearing;
(e) a draft order.

13. Documents delivered to the Court electronically shall be delivered to one of the following address, recording the case number in the subject heading of the email:
Family cases: WatfordCountyFamily@justice.gov.uk
Civil cases: enquiries.watford.countycourt@justice.gov.uk

14. No document other than a document specified in an Order or filed in accordance with the Rules of any Practice Direction shall be delivered to the Court without the Court’s permission.

What about the points on late delivery of defence, duplicated dates on claim form, witness statement etc?
Surely most of that is already in your WS and evidence that you submitted in February, in time (when they were late)? Assuming you DID file and serve (i.e. to the court and the claimant's solicitors) a WS and evidence, photos, case law and all the facts in February, but missed the abuse of process point and didn't attach a copy of DJ Grand's judgment in Britannia v Crosby (see the template defence thread for that attachment) then get those sent - PLUS your defence, WS and evidence all over again, because you must assume the Judge will not have access to them -  to Gladstones this, tomorrow morning before noon to give them a chance to discontinue or comply with that Order and include all your documents and YOUR 'draft order' (yep, the court wants one, so here it is!):

SUBJECT LINE OF EMAIL:CLAIM NUMBER XXXXXXX TELEPHONE HEARING THURSDAY 30th APRIL 2020 - UK Car Park Management Ltd v xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
Dear Sirs, I refer to the Order from Watford court, setting a telephone hearing for this Thursday and requiring yourselves to send to the court, the documents listed at 12 a - e of that Order.  My telephone number for the telephone hearing is xxxxx xxxxxxxx (not to be passed to your client and not to be used for any other purpose than the telephone hearing).  Here (attached) are my PDF documents that comply with Watford Court's Order, and I require that you MUST include these in the bundle, because they are my key documents.  The attached are my 'essential documents' that the court requires to determine the issues that fall for determination at the remote hearing.

You may supply the chronology, because that is not in dispute, but that must include not just the chronology of the parking event and charge/demands, but also the full chronology of the documents and submissions made thus far.  This is required as part of the essential bundle, because the Judge's attention will be drawn as a preliminary matter, to your late filing of the reply to defence (contrary to the Court's November 2019 Order) and also your late filing of your client's bundle, along with the fact that their putative 'witness statement' is a template with a facsimile 'signature' that matches the others that the SRA are investigating in Gladstones/UKCPM cases since 2019.

ATTACHED:(a) my defence as filed with the CCBC in 2019(b) My witness statement as filed & served in February 2020
(c) My evidence as filed and served in February 2020(d) A copy of a sheet showing the same 'Jack Chapman' signature from various cases reported to the SRA along with a copy of an email from the SRA that is in the public domain, showing that a continuing investigation is in progress against Gladstones where these template 'witness statements' have been reported by multiple Defendants for abuse of process.(e) a copy of the CRA 2015 schedule 2, and I will ask the court to consider its duty under s71 and specifically look at paras 6, 10, 14 and 18 of schedule 2 when assessing the test of fairness of your client's terms and notice (sign).  Your client's attention is drawn to the duty of the court to consider this, even in cases where it has not been raised before.(f) a copy of District Judge Grand's judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby & anor, Southampton Court 11.11.19 which summarises why parking firms cannot lawfully add £60 to each 'parking charge' because it is an attempt to go behind the Beavis case at paraa 98, 193 and 198 and a serious abuse of process.(g) My Summary Costs Assessment (signed and dated) showing my printing & postage costs and my many hours of time - at £19 per hour LiP rate - spent researching and replying to letters and documents in this case, both in the pre- and post-action stages, in my attempts to resolve the dispute.  (h) My Draft Order, attached separately as a Word document (you or your client must not alter this in any way, but I understand that your client might opt to supply your own alternative Draft Order).
Your client is invited to discontinue the claim prior to the hearing but this will be subject to the hearing then continuing as a costs hearing, given the extreme late notice.   You will note that I attach my (signed and dated) Summary Costs Assessment, breaking down my hours of time wasted on this matter and - whether or not your client discontinues - I claim these (and my printing and postage costs for the February documents) on the indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g). My Summary Costs Assessment has today been emailed to the court, in case your client now discontinues.

yours faithfully, xxxxxx  xxxxxxxxDEFENDANT
____________________________________________________________
DRAFT ORDER - attach this to the email separately,  AS A WORD DOCUMENT:
In the County Court at WatfordClaim Number: xxxxxxx

UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)

v

YOUR NAME (Defendant)

DRAFT ORDER

Before Deputy District Judge xxxxxxxx  sitting at the County Court at Watford.  Upon reading the essential documents and submissions, and having heard from the Claimant's legal representative and the Defendant speaking in person at a remote hearing on 30th April 2020, IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. The claim is dismissed.

2. The Claimant is ordered to pay the Defendant's costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g), the in the sum of £xxx within 14 days of service of this order.

REASONS

(a) The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge(s) which it is alleged the driver was contracted to pay.  This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, para 4(5), nor with reference to the binding Supreme Court judgment, which expressly approved the parking charge because it included costs of administration (ref: ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 - paragraphs 98,193 and 198).  Additionally, s71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the court to consider the fairness of a contract term/notice, and the inclusion of additional charges falls into examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the indicative list of unfair terms in Schedule 2 of the Act. It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. 

(b) The Claimant has produced a witness statement which is an abuse and, on the balance of probabilities, the court finds that it was prepared by the Claimant's solicitor (Gladstones) and not by the Claimant.  The court notes that the signature matches - to the last pixel - other versions of the facsimile signature of 'Jack Chapman' as has been reported to the Solicitors' Regulation Authority by multiple Defendants against this Claimant since 2019, and is understood to be the subject of a current investigation of Gladstones solicitors, by that Authority.  The Claimant's witness statement (and the Claimant's 'reply to defence' as ordered by this court in November 2019) were both filed and served late.  The 50-page bundle from the Claimant contains factual errors, undated photographs and template legal argument, the document being served late and in terrorem of the Defendant and not as a real attempt to assist the court with the substantive facts of the case; ref CPR 32 (1) ''A witness statement is a written statement signed by a person which contains the evidence which that person would be allowed to give orally.''   There has been no serious attempt to comply with the CPRs and the Claimant's incoherent, stylised particulars do not constitute compliance; it being noted that three of the claimed parking charges have been stated to relate to the same date.  The test in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 is met.

Dated: 30.04.2020

zhonguonuren

Too much to quote all - but if I could ‘thank’ it 100 times I would 

D_P_Dance

 It stops a court directly asking awkward questions that could lead to contempt and a referral to the sra. 

How?  Surely if Gladstones instruct the dirty shirt  they are equally complicit in any wrong doing.

nosferatu1001

OK - stops is the wrong word. Makes it more difficult and less obvious
But as yo uhave seen from your experience on here, civil courts, especially small claims track courts, tend to deal with what is in front of them. Not someone behind the scenes. 
Getting the CRO for one location took so long, partly because the PPC was never in court to be harangued.