UK CPM/Gladstones Case - Jack Chapman threads - Student in need of help!

Hamman27

I am at the stage of having to produce a witness statement for my case that will be held via BT MEET ME in early November. I have just received a dubious witness statement from a Jack Chapman and have seen numerous posts about witness statements from him. I have read the Newbies thread and seen some other threads referencing threads with information and numerous reports about his statement and complaints made to the SRA. Can someone help me with gathering information about this and provide me with info about what I can use as evidence that this statement is likely to be fraudulent? 

Also, I a bit worried about the case concerning Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] that they have cited against me. Does anyone have any advice about this?

I appreciate anyone that can help me regarding this.

Johnersh

Lots on those statements. Now tell me, does the statement of truth read "my company believes the facts..." rather than "I believe". If so, that is defective.

In general the position is that:
1. There is a statement from an individual who is not an officer of the company, the parking attendant or signatory to the contract for the site;
2. In the early paras he says he's authorised to give a statement, but is then unwilling or unable to verify it. Presumably because it does not contain facts within his knowledge
3. It is prejudicial that he is not present to respond to your challenges to that so called evidence
4. The statement is prepared by a professional firm (the exhibits will be GS1 for Gladstones Solicitors and a generic template) it is not acceptable for it not to be properly verified.

Semark Julien is as I understand it a now successful appeal on a judgment striking out an entire claim because of the additional £60 applied *before* any party appeared in front of a judge.

The important thing to note is that whilst the appeal was successful and claim was reinstated, the appeal did NOT determine the point.  Put simply, the question of whether the charge is impermissible and an abuse remains up for grabs. 

In my view, since the £60 is a fixed cost imposed in every case, which bears no relationship to any costs the parking company may incur (which are not itemised or pleaded in almost all cases) then it is a form of liquidated damages. You can only agree to those in a contract if the wording specifies it. I've yet to see a sign which does. 

Coupon-mad

Also, I a bit worried about the case concerning Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] that they have cited against me. Does anyone have any advice about this?

How do people miss that it is fully covered in the example WS in the NEWBIES THREAD...

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?

Hamman27

Thank you all for the swift responses! The statement of truth reads 'The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this witness statement are true...' 

In his witness statement, Jack Chapman claims to be 'the employee of the Claimant company'. 

Thanks for clearing the Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] case up, that was my understanding, having read the judgment. However, I do believe that it was determined that the whole claim should not have been struck out on the basis of the additional £60 charge. I believe on appeal, the court said that even if the additional charge was unlawful, the remaining £100 charge should not necessarily fail as a result.

'How do people miss that it is fully covered in the example WS in the NEWBIES THREAD...' - I struggled to find the witness statement as the link from the NEWBIES thread takes you to page 7 of robertcox999's thread. The statement there doesn't appear to cover that case but when I went to page 5 I did find a statement that referred to it.

At present, my three key arguments are going to be:
1.Insufficient signage and unfair contract terms;
2. Jack Chapman WS; 
3. double recovery £60 charge.

I have sufficient evidence for arguments one and three but am lacking evidence for the Jack Chapman statement. In someone's defence statement, under their listed evidence, they had supposedly got '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'. I have been unable to locate this evidence and would be grateful to anyone that can forward this onto me.

Hamman27

Also, I haven't complained to my local MP but I will write a letter today. Thanks for the idea.

nosferatu1001

"The claimant" is a company
A company cannot BELIEVE anything!
Dnot you see the issue that stateemnt being altered gives you? The court should be concerned as well. That WS is worthless as evidence. 

Snakes_Belly

Hamman27 said:

Also, I haven't complained to my local MP but I will write a letter today. Thanks for the idea.

Just as a matter of interest did the initial notice to keeper go to your home address? This sometimes happens with students and they do not see their post until they return home. This can result in a default CCJ.  Has not happened in your case as you are onto it but it does happen and something that you might want to mention to your MP.

Boris Johnson has stated that he wants young people to get on the housing ladder and is looking at 95% mortgages. That will not be much help if they end up with a CCJ that they are not even aware of.

twhitehousescat

D_P_Dance said:

Have you complained to your MP?

whats he going to do , write a nasty letter to Jack and tell him no xmas presents till he,s a good boy again !

this is well past "parking ticket " stage , its now COURT stage , what can a bloody MP do 

Fruitcake

Please post the scammer's WS including the alleged contract. Only redact your personal data. Hang fire on sending your WS so that the regulars can comment on the scammer's WS, but do not miss the filing deadline to send yours.

JC usually goes to great lengths (several paragraphs) to explain why he thinks it is OK to use an electronic version of his signature when it would be much quicker, easier, and more logical for him to actually sign the document. It is possible that he doesn't actually being done in his name else he would sign it I'm sure. You should mention this at the hearing and ask him to respond ... well you would do if he were present so. IF the witness is not there for you to challenge and question, it puts you at a disadvantage.

BrownTrout

twhitehousescat said:

D_P_Dance said:

Have you complained to your MP?

whats he going to do , write a nasty letter to Jack and tell him no xmas presents till he,s a good boy again !

this is well past "parking ticket " stage , its now COURT stage , what can a bloody MP do 

well said
writing to an mp is just a waste of ink