Gladstone/ AM parking services LTD CLAIM FORM

1505grandad

So far:-

Wrong claimant on heading.

No paras numbered so difficult to point out where you have stated pcn on car while at work  -  please make sure that when using    c & p it actually applies to your situation.

laurenjo12

thankyou. Now im not in a panic i can do a better version and get it uploaded.

patient_dream

laurenjo12 said:

thankyou. Now im not in a panic i can do a better version and get it uploaded.

Don't panic, just follow to the letter what you are being told on here, 

Just keep remembering that you are involved in a scam and this forum ZAPS them

laurenjo12

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ifave0c6k69tq1j/WS DRAFT URGENT ( (1).pdf?dl=0

Le_Kirk

Your paragraph 4 - the defendant is prejudiced and none the wiser.

laurenjo12

i will correct the above-thankyou.
any other thoughts on this draft?

laurenjo12

hi everyone-can anyone tell me if they think my WS is ok?

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

I'd remove 5 and 29 which add nothing and the costs are not 'banned' because that decision is on hold and is being revisited with a Government Impact Assessment.

That fact is covered in a paragraph in the Template Defence that starts with the word 'Whilst' so I'd go and get that and replace your 29 with it.

laurenjo12

Thankyou. I will do that. I will upload my final version once done

laurenjo12

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good.

I'd remove 5 and 29 which add nothing and the costs are not 'banned' because that decision is on hold and is being revisited with a Government Impact Assessment.

That fact is covered in a paragraph in the Template Defence that starts with the word 'Whilst' so I'd go and get that and replace your 29 with it.

is this the one?
Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.