PCN from UKCPM Gladstone - URGENT help with witness statment

Coupon-mad

No just wait.

KeithP

Brightlinks said:

I have sent DQ on CCBCAQ on 23/10/2023 and confirmation email received but still not updated yet. Do I need to contact them or wait ?

Wait patiently.
Several weeks delay is often experienced at this stage.

Brightlinks

Hi All

No update till date since the letter received from CCBC to transfer case to local court.

A claim was issued against you on 03/08/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 12/08/2023 at 13:37:40

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 14/08/2023 at 01:06:07

Your defence was received on 04/09/2023

Case Stay Lifted on 16/10/2023

DQ sent to you on 16/10/2023

DQ filed by claimant on 16/10/2023 ( how can they submit immediately - I received by post after 4 days)

I have sent DQ on CCBCAQ on 23/10/2023 and confirmation email received.

Can i send an email to local and provide the CEL v CHAN case transcript before they allocate the hearing date ?

Coupon-mad

No harm in it.

Forward the acknowledgement email and CEL v Chan and the DQ yet again, as 3 x attachments, and ask the CNBC to update MCOL - which they haven't done in a timely fashion - and draw the allocating Judge's attention to CEL v Chan.

You need to email them anyway, as they've clearly lost your DQ.

You must copy in Gladstones.

Nellymoser

Good luck with your hearing please @Brightlinks consider supporting this. 

PPCs always claim discounted rate/full rate pcns and court claim letters were sent but no proof is offered. As operators CHOOSE NOT to provide evidence of their posting we must continue to press gov to ensure they do and include it in the new Parking CoP. Please sign/share @jmccabe petition closes 22nd june 2024.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652355
Require communications from Private Parking companies to be traceable/trackable

Brightlinks

Coupon-mad said:

Yes - you can add a Supplementary WS updating the Judge with the new CEL judgment about striking out a claim due to woeful POC.

AND you need to add all the recent updates from the DLUHC.

But WAIT TILL NEARER THE HEARING to do that, as the DLUHC will publish much more in the next 6 months.

See the latest WS linked in the NEWBIES thread by baz417 but bide your time. There is more to come from the Government!

Re the second one:

Claim form issued in Aug 2023 - Defence submitted and am awaiting DQ from the CCBC - what will be next course of action ?

As per the NEWBIES thread really. 

Hi All 

I am planning to send below Supplementary WS before the hearing date in 23rd March -

Supplementary Witness Statement of Defendant

1.       I, xxxxx, of xxxxx, am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.       In my statement I shall refer to Exhibits xx-yy within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Preliminary matter: the claim should be struck out

3.       I draw to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims). I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

4.       A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (Exhibit 0).

5.       Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 0a)

6.       Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (See Exhibit 0b)

7.       Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. (See Exhibit 0c)

8.       I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to the Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement was provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached.

 

Costs

9.         I claim fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14.

10.       I ask for finding of unreasonable conduct in relation to paragraphs xx-yy and seek costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

I believe that the facts stated in this Supplementary Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Any suggestion please ?

Coupon-mad

You can just attach one exhibit: the 'judgments' single PDF posted by @Le_Kirk which is linked in the NEWBIES thread a-f suggested list of exhibits.  It now includes a strike out from this week (Preston Court).

Brightlinks

Hil All

Hearing bundle received from Claimant and they have mentioned that they are not attending the hearing.( they have included the supplemantary witness statement)

I have sent earlier supplemantary witness statement with Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) via email to both court and Claimant but no update from the court yet, Shall I call the court and asked if they have received it and if any update on the case ?

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

You can just attach one exhibit: the 'judgments' single PDF posted by @Le_Kirk which is linked in the NEWBIES thread a-f suggested list of exhibits.  It now includes a strike out from this week (Preston Court).

You didn't send the above document?

Brightlinks

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

You can just attach one exhibit: the 'judgments' single PDF posted by @Le_Kirk which is linked in the NEWBIES thread a-f suggested list of exhibits.  It now includes a strike out from this week (Preston Court).

You didn't send the above document?

Yes I did embeded to all 4 judgements with supplemantary witness statement.

Claimant attached the my supplementary witness statement with their hearing bundle.

When I emailed the court I ccd to Claimant.

No update from the court yet, Shall I call on Monday or Tuesday to confirm the hearing or Wait ?