Count Court Business Centre - UKPM - Gladstones

B789

amf1991 said:

Hi,

I've now received the Directions Questionnaire - could I just be advised whether my defence is acceptable. 

Thank you.

Whilst most of are stunned to see an N180 DQ arrive within 3 days of a Defence being filed, are you sure? Also, just in case this is real, is this your DQ or a copy of the Claimant's DQ? What does your MCOL history say?

amf1991

Hi, @Umkomaas and @B789. 

This is a copy of the Claimant's DQ. 

Email received from: Gladstones Solicitors at 11:08, 14/04. 
Subject title: Serving Defendant with DQ Case Ref ------------ Claim Number -------------
Document title: Directions Questionnaire (ServeDef) 
Body of email: "We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the Claim. Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court". 

Claim History as per MCOL: 

 - Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 19/03/2023 at 22:13:24

 - Your acknowledgment of service was received on 20/03/2023 at 08:05:17

 - Your defence was received on 11/04/2023

Thank you. 

B789

You should wait until you see on your MCOL history that an N180 DQ has been sent to you by the court. As soon as you see that, just download your own N180, complete it and then email it as an attachment to the same email address you used for your Defence. CC in Gladrags.

They may have used an out of date N180 so, in anticipation of the usual quesry about Q. D1 on the current form, this is what you put:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/73d6bfbfvogtp4e/N180_DQ_QD1_response.pdf?dl=0

amf1991

Hi, guys. 

Thank you again for your help so far. 

@B789 - thank you. The N180 still doesn't appear on the MCOL history - should I just continue to wait?

Cheers. 

B789

amf1991 said:

The N180 still doesn't appear on the MCOL history - should I just continue to wait?

Yes.     

KeithP

amf1991 said:

The N180 still doesn't appear on the MCOL history - should I just continue to wait?

The CCBC sent you a letter, or will send you a letter, saying the Claimant has twenty eight days to consider your Defence.

What you don't know is when the CCBC sent a copy of your Defence to the Claimant. It follows from that that it is not known when the Claimant has to respond to the CCBC.

Further, we don't know what delays there are in the CCBC that means they don't send you a Directions Questionnaire as promptly as you might like.

And this recent thread indicates that longer delays are likely... CCBC are currently 26 days behind with DQs

Can I suggest that you keep checking your MCOL Claim History and as soon as you see that the CCBC has sent a DQ to you, you are ready to download a DQ, complete it and fire it back at the CCBC, remembering to send a copy to the Claimant of course?

amf1991

Hi there, 

Thank you very much for all of you help so far - it's much appreciated.

I have now received "Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)". Hearing is due to take place 12 February 2024, through the virtual court via CVP.

I just wanted to confirm that my step would be to send all relevant documents/evidence to the court, fourteen days prior to the hearing.

I've copied a summary of my case/position below to save flicking back and forth. My evidence, I guess, is the reviews online from other people who have experienced exactly what I'm experiencing now. A failing in their system, which means whether the customer ends up with a parking ticket is out of their control. You're relying on a member of the bar staff to, firstly note down your number plate correctly, then correctly note it in the system, this is if they get around to completing this process at all.

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Defendant visited the Ship & Trades for a work meeting. Due to the visit exceeding a customer’s parking allowance, the defendant followed normal procedure and informed a member of staff that an extension of the original parking allowance was required. As requested, the Defendant wrote their registration number on a piece of paper and handed it to a member of staff, as did his colleagues. The Defendant’s parking extension was reliant on the Ship & Trades’ member of staff following their procedure, firstly inputting the Defendant’s registration details into the relevant system, and secondly inputting the details correctly into the relevant system.

4. Upon receipt of the PCN, during the Defendant’s next visit to the Ship & Trades, the Defendant spoke with a member of staff regarding the charge and was informed the charge would be cancelled. The defendant therefore chose to ignore any further correspondence. Due to the Claimant’s exceptionally negative online reviews regarding business practice and conduct, the Defendant believed the letters could be fraudulent.

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A little daunting!

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

This is a Gladstones case so less likely to be discontinued.  But we still see almost every case won at hearings if you do a decent WS bundle.

Exemplar WS wording and an a-f list of evidence to include is in the NEWBIES thread.

THIS WEEKEND - a job for you if you are minded to join us to stop this abuse of the court system by bulk litigators:

Please find time to do this new Justice Committee Inquiry before it closes - help us to try to STOP this abuse of the system:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

Consumer groups have said:

"“Looking ahead, this inquiry should be a stepping stone to a full-scale commission on civil justice with the needs of consumers as its heart.”

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Show the Committee your claim form from a year ago, and the 2024 hearing letter to show them how long this scam is taking to be heard and that these court letters are written in unacceptable legalese, burying the vital info about Witness Statements & evidence on page two, so consumer Defendants are missing it.

Please also state that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the main problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate the court's work.

Parking court claim numbers are rising every year and will make up close to a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice draft Impact Assessment.

The MoJ must now urgently separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol.

The DLUHC must put in place an ADR to resolve disputes, instead of letting bulk litigators loose to add money and race to court.

It should be a last resort but it seems from what we see every year, that litigation is one of the aims of bulk litigators like Gladstones.

The whole system is a nasty joke and the courts (and consumers) are being used and abused by firms making a mint (and it's not just the parking operators, it is mainly the bulk litigators).

This is a national scandal affecting hundreds of thousands of people every year.  Yes it is that many.

There are c1.5m small claims per annum and about HALF A MILLION are parking claims.

Please tell the Committee that the private parking legislative framework needs to be removed from the county court altogether., to protect consumers. These rogue parking cases should NEVER go to county court and should not be able to affect people's credit rating.

Please add your voice about the above.

Interested parties have until 17 January  to make a submission to the committee.

amf1991

Hi, 

Thank you for guidance @Coupon-mad - I do really appreciate it.

I have just about finished with my WS. 

To highlight the restaurant's flawed parking procedure and to simply evidence the nature of their procedure - I have collated a number of online reviews to show other customers that have faced a similar predicament (providing their reg details to a member of staff - that have not been processed). I just wanted to make sure that this would be okay to use as evidence, and if so, should I redact usernames.

I have done the same to show the fraudulent reputation of Gladstones and the reason for not responding to their intimidating letters.

I have have also included what was relevant from "a-f list" of evidence. Exaggerated claim, poor signage, etc.

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

All sounds good but no using the word 'fraud'.