Gloucester Whittle Square PCM/Gladstone (UPDATE 14/04/2021 Won in Court)

Johnersh

Besides the ws that was sent by the claimant. There are no particulars of the claim. I not sure what I'm looking for when you say particulars of the case. 
I'm guessing the claim form contained particulars of claim that said something like "the defendant failed to comply with parking terms". Para 4 of the court order you've just received requires them to serve:

1. A written response to your defence 
2. New, more detailed, allegations than those set out in the claim form. 
3. A witness statement

You have received 1/3 of what you should have. The claimant is in default.

The statements of truth for witness statements and for statements of case (ie particulars of claim) are different. The witness may be authorised to do a statement but its not clear that she is to present allegations of negligence on behalf of her company, especially if she is not an officer of the company. They cannot simply argue that the statement stands in place of the detailed particulars they were ordered to submit. 

rajon

Johnersh said:

Besides the ws that was sent by the claimant. There are no particulars of the claim. I not sure what I'm looking for when you say particulars of the case. 
I'm guessing the claim form contained particulars of claim that said something like "the defendant failed to comply with parking terms". Para 4 of the court order you've just received requires them to serve:

1. A written response to your defence 
2. New, more detailed, allegations than those set out in the claim form. 
3. A witness statement

You have received 1/3 of what you should have. The claimant is in default.

The statements of truth for witness statements and for statements of case (ie particulars of claim) are different. The witness may be authorised to do a statement but its not clear that she is to present allegations of negligence on behalf of her company, especially if she is not an officer of the company. They cannot simply argue that the statement stands in place of the detailed particulars they were ordered to submit. 

Yes the claims form had something along those lines. It never stated which terms was breached etc. Is this grounds to get the claim struck out? Would this be something to bring up in my witness statement? 

Fruitcake

rajon said:

Johnersh said:

Besides the ws that was sent by the claimant. There are no particulars of the claim. I not sure what I'm looking for when you say particulars of the case. 
I'm guessing the claim form contained particulars of claim that said something like "the defendant failed to comply with parking terms". Para 4 of the court order you've just received requires them to serve:

1. A written response to your defence 
2. New, more detailed, allegations than those set out in the claim form. 
3. A witness statement

You have received 1/3 of what you should have. The claimant is in default.

The statements of truth for witness statements and for statements of case (ie particulars of claim) are different. The witness may be authorised to do a statement but its not clear that she is to present allegations of negligence on behalf of her company, especially if she is not an officer of the company. They cannot simply argue that the statement stands in place of the detailed particulars they were ordered to submit. 

Yes the claims form had something along those lines. It never stated which terms was breached etc. Is this grounds to get the claim struck out? Would this be something to bring up in my witness statement? 

That will be entirely up to the judge, but it is something you should definitely address. That's why it was pointed out to you.

As for the statement of truth, it does not comply with the CPR. A company (the claimant) is incapable of believing anything. Only a living person can do that.

henrik777

rajon said:

Le_Kirk said:

rajon said:

Le_Kirk said:

If you have already submitted your WS, you could try sending in a replacement providing you send a copy to the claimant.

I am yet to submit yet my WS. I realised my deadline to file the document i intend to rely one is on the 3rd of march but my WS statement deadline is 17th of march.

That bit doesn't make sense!  Has the court sent you a letter with two different sets of date?  Normally "everything you intend to rely in" is the witness statement, evidence and summary costs assessment and must be submitted 14 days before the hearing date.

Para 2 and 3. I assumed Para 2 meant to send in my evidence and Para 3 meant to send in my witness statement to the court and and claimant. 
@Jenni_D

1. Must
2. Must
3. Must
4. Do


So in my opinion they appear to be in breach but the order does not include a sanction for such a breach.

Thus you need the court to take another step. A letter usually doesn't work so it would take an application but the cost is probably prohibitive.

rajon

Johnersh said:

Besides the ws that was sent by the claimant. There are no particulars of the claim. I not sure what I'm looking for when you say particulars of the case. 
I'm guessing the claim form contained particulars of claim that said something like "the defendant failed to comply with parking terms". Para 4 of the court order you've just received requires them to serve:

1. A written response to your defence 
2. New, more detailed, allegations than those set out in the claim form. 
3. A witness statement

You have received 1/3 of what you should have. The claimant is in default.

The statements of truth for witness statements and for statements of case (ie particulars of claim) are different. The witness may be authorised to do a statement but its not clear that she is to present allegations of negligence on behalf of her company, especially if she is not an officer of the company. They cannot simply argue that the statement stands in place of the detailed particulars they were ordered to submit. 

in response to the suggestions I have reshuffled my exhibits so that the parking location is exhibit 1, removed any part of statement which may imply T&C's were breached and have added the following in response of not receiving POC and an incorrect statement of truth.

Claimants Witness Statement

1. There are a number of point which are concerning within the claimant witness statement which are as follows.

2. The statement of truth has been amended to read ‘The Claimant believes that the facts..’ as opposed to ‘I believe that the facts…’. The maker of the declaration is highlighting that there is information she does not believe or, more likely, that there is information within the material that is not within her knowledge or belief.

3. The Witness Annie Oliver states  ‘where she refers to information supplied to by others, the source if the information is identified’. At no point in the statement does she specify to who provided information CPR 32 PD 18.2(2). She also fails to record to whom she spoke when preparing the witness statement CPR 32 PD 18.1(5).

4. The statement of truth refers to the ‘claimant’ PCM Ltd and not the witness ‘I’ Annie Oliver. The Claimant being a company is incapable of believing anything, it therefore does not comply with the CPR.

Full particulars of Claim

1. The claimant is yet to provide anything that resembles Full particulars of Claim, it was ordered by the court for the claimant to ‘file and serve a reply to the defence with full particulars of the Claim’ by 24/02/2021. Therefore I lack pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim provided to the claims form failed to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely state ‘parked in breach of the terms stipulated on the signage’, provided a date, and a claimant claim amount consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum. Due to this, I have had to do guess work in order to formulate my defence against such a 'cut & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied me a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way.

I think I will need to print and send this off tomorrow in order to get it to Gladstone by the 3rd of march.

Coupon-mad

But everyone emails Gladstones and there are email addresses for them on the forum, for the sake of a quick search.  You won't be printing or posting stuff re a small claim, during lockdown restrictions.

rajon

nosferatu1001 said:

Yes, which is a really weird way of doing it, as your WS leads your evidence - ie you reference all your exhibits first from your WS, otherwise all the court has is some documents
Personally Just send everything in by the 3rd, its easier on you, and by definition that complies with the 17th

Did they comply with 4?

Is there any disadvantages of submitting everything on the 3rd opposed to waiting till the 17th to submit my WS and submitting the court bundle on the 3rd only? 

nosferatu1001

well the main disadvantage is exactly what i told you: your WS is what introduces your exhibits, so you have to write this alongside your documents. You're then unable to really do much in between, as the documents (exhibits) have already been sent in. 
Working on the deadline of the 3rd for all reduces your chance of error, and reduces the chance you then forget to send in the WS, or make a mistake in editing so your exhibits don't line up any longer, etc. 
Pro to delay: You give them sight of your WS earlier, and so more time to prepare

rajon

First of all I'd like to thank everyone here for the tremendous amount of help provided via this forum and on this thread. This amazing source of information which has been built from responses to past posts and this community which has been build is absolutely amazing.

I don't think i did a great job on fighting my case verbally as i wanted but it was enough to get the claim dismissed. The particular part in my case which got the claim dismissed was the lack of clear marked bays and signage not clearly defining what was considered a bay. The location which I parked has a layby next to it that is valid parking but did not have marked bays. Therefore the judge said it's not very clear what is a bay and what is not. Gladstone was asked whether or not the layby was a permitted place to park to which he responded that it's not (it is and their own submitted evidence states it is), this really went against them. The judge also considered my argument that the area i parked in is commonly used as parking the judge felt this was due to the confusion about this layby, mixed with the lack of road markings to define restriction and that PCM can do more to clearly define what is permitted parking.

The judge seemed also frustrated about the lack page numbers and exhibit number in the documents gladstone submitted (this was particularly difficult keeping track over a phone hearing). The Gladstone representative had to use page titles and description to navigate the the judge through their document. 

I probably could have given them a better mincing if I had some responses to some of the cases Gladstone referred to about the contract not being valid but in the end case was dismissed and i am happy about that. Thank you once again.

Redx

Well done , Gladrags and pcm lose yet again !!

This sounds similar to the Mrs sunglasses lay-by sc#m where the council took it over in the end !!

Another one bites the dust !!