Gladstones LBC letter

Le_Kirk

Do you already have a Government Gateway account?  You might have one if, for example, you have been filing tax returns on-line.  If not you will have to register and they will send you the account user_name by post.  It only takes a couple of days.

patient_dream

Avol

You need to keep on top with Gladstones

The company has form

Gladstones Solicitors on BBC Rip off Britain  today  11th May 2022
SERIES 14: EPISODE 8

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6357152/gladstones-solicitors-on-bbc-rip-off-britain-today#latest

Avol

Thanks all, sorted, it turns out like @Le_Kirk said, I have had a GG and had to use that.
Just to be ahead of the game, does anyone has any direct link to a good WS, that maybe applies to me? it would be much appreciated.
@patient_dream that will be interesting, will defo watch

Umkomaas

Avol said:

Thanks all, sorted, it turns out like @Le_Kirk said, I have had a GG and had to use that.
Just to be ahead of the game, does anyone has any direct link to a good WS, that maybe applies to me? it would be much appreciated.
@patient_dream that will be interesting, will defo watch

That produced by @ricky_balboa is seen as the current exemplar. 

Avol

Can anyone advise if the words "Residents parking only" sign attached to the terms and conditions sign can be deemed as forbidding? Can a contract be created between a visitor or external motorist if there are no other signs for visitors parking/loading off loading.

I have noticed that in my case all signs simple with very tiny terms and conditions incripted, however one particular sign, of a impaired visibility is placed behind a tree and has an additional sign stating "residents parking only" - was wondering if this would not be a matter of trespassing, although would not want to risk as this was so commonly used in defences.

Avol

I have finally received the N180 by post, however I have noticed that there is a updated version online. Initially I wanted to to download the form and complete it and file it via email as it would be much simpler however now I am a little confused.
The new version has a couple of new paragraphs from which one states:
< "D1 Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without a hearing, i.e. by a judge reading and considering the case papers, witness statements and other documents filed by the parties, making a decision, and giving a note of reasons for that decision? If No, please state why not." > and then carries on < "Relevant reasons include that there are factual disputes which will need the judge to hear from witnesses directly (in which case please specify the factual dispute and the relevant witnesses) or that the issues are so complex they need to be argued orally.">

Does anyone know what is the reason I should state as I don't think it will work in my benefit to agree on decision without hearing.

Le_Kirk

Search the forum for a thread by @Grizebeck where this new N180 - DQ is discussed.  However, the answer is NO, you do not want a hearing "on papers".
Here is the thread: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6364201/new-questions-on-the-n180-form/p1

Avol

Thanks @Le_Kirk
 I have read the thread and considering that I have childcare duties and family commitments , seems a a plausible reason for my situation.

However I have now received the Claimant's N180 and the CCBC's letter with DQ attached for me to complete - and they are both the old version. Not sure what to do, should I then use the old version myself in this case as this would be much simpler. 
It seems odd that CCBC have sent me the previous version.

KeithP

Avol said:

Thanks @Le_Kirk
 I have read the thread and considering that I have childcare duties and family commitments , seems a a plausible reason for my situation.

However I have now received the Claimant's N180 and the CCBC's letter with DQ attached for me to complete - and they are both the old version. Not sure what to do, should I then use the old version myself in this case as this would be much simpler. 
It seems odd that CCBC have sent me the previous version.

You have a choice.
As you say, the old version is simpler - I would use that.

Avol

 Thanks again for your support @KeithP.

Is it ok to scan the Form and email it in the same way I have emailed my Defence? This would be much simpler and will get the receipt confirmation as well.