PCN from UKCPM Gladstone - URGENT help with witness statment

Coupon-mad

No counterclaim?  Up to you.

This makes no sense:

"and the 3rd person was the driver at the time PCN issued."

B789

Your defence is responding to the woefully inadequate and incoherent PoC. KISS and don't do the intellectually malnourished claimants' job for them. Answer the PoC and let them prove their case.

If you are the RK and were not the driver, just say so. If you were a passenger in the vehicle then just state that. Nothing in the PoC say that they have any idea who the driver was.

For para #3 just state that the vehicle has been registered to park at the location with the Atlip Centre Permit Portal since 03/11/2020 until xx/xx/xxxx (or is still valid). The Claimant has already admitted and apologised for their error in issuing previous, identical PCNs. They have not provided any explanation for continuing with this claim for a single PCN issued under the exact same conditions and show no cause of action.

I'm sure @Coupon-madcould word the above a bit better but it is all you really need to put in your defence against those ridiculous PoC. You can expand on everything later at WS time should the scammers proceed to that stage.

Brightlinks

update

Gladstone sent DQ via 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.  

I have submitted evidence to DLUHC.

B789

You may be interested in this recent successful appeal where a claim has been struck out because of inadequate PoC. Whilst this was an appeal against a set aside that was refused, the appeal judge agreed that the claim should have been struck out at the original set aside hearing for failing to adhere to CPR 16.4 and PD to Part 16.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0

Umkomaas

B789 said:

You may be interested in this recent successful appeal where a claim has been struck out because of inadequate PoC. Whilst this was an appeal against a set aside that was refused, the appeal judge agreed that the claim should have been struck out at the original set aside hearing for failing to adhere to CPR 16.4 and PD to Part 16.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0

It was @Brightlinks (one and the same as the OP of this thread) who posted that appeal judgment.  Not sure where they got it from, but interesting reading for sure, and very usable. 

B789

Yes, I should have read back a bit futher. As I pointed out in my earlier post here: 29 August at 8:44PM, this transcript will assist you in your case. Thank you for finding it and posting.

Brightlinks

B789 said:

Yes, I should have read back a bit futher. As I pointed out in my earlier post here: 29 August at 8:44PM, this transcript will assist you in your case. Thank you for finding it and posting.

Thanks for heads up
I have 2 claim form with Gladstone and 1 expecting from DCB legal.

B789

Is the conduct giving rise to the breach set out in the PoC of your Gladstone claims? We know that it never is in DCB Legal claims.

exongrad

Judge March’s judgment is excellent and well done to the clever Mr Yamba.It is very technical - and subtle.I have an LL.B but I had to read it several times to grasp it.The nub is para10.I think it should be used widely.If the brighter legal louts eventually catch on,so be it.Meantime, we should use every weapon and give no quarter to them.

Brightlinks

B789 said:

Is the conduct giving rise to the breach set out in the PoC of your Gladstone claims? We know that it never is in DCB Legal claims.

It seems yes on both cases, see below -


hearing postponed to March 24