Gladstones claim form

ignoredletterdotcom

Still cant find the correct Gladstones defence, is anyone able to send the link to me?

Coupon-mad

It's in the Template Defence thread, linked twice there already. The 2 links in that thread for Gladstones claims show paragraph 3.

Just pop that in and a line about the claim not being for the right amount because it states a PCN of £110 which is impossible, and you are done.

  

ignoredletterdotcom

Coupon-mad said:

It's in the Template Defence thread, linked twice there already. The 2 links in that thread for Gladstones claims show paragraph 3.

Just pop that in and a line about the claim not being for the right amount because it states a PCN of £110 which is impossible, and you are done.

  

Can you give me the first line of it so I can try ctlr F to find the correct section

ignoredletterdotcom

Coupon-mad said:

It's in the Template Defence thread, linked twice there already. The 2 links in that thread for Gladstones claims show paragraph 3.

Just pop that in and a line about the claim not being for the right amount because it states a PCN of £110 which is impossible, and you are done.

  

I found this for paragraph 3

Paragraph 3 is yours to write!

Please DO NOT say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO PUT" (you do, see below) but by all means post your draft para 3 for feedback on your own thread:

3.  EITHER:

IF THE POC FAIL TO STATE THE BREACH (e.g. Civil Enforcement Ltd, Gladstones & Moorside cases currently all fail to specify an allegation) BRIEFLY REFER TO CEL v CHAN & CPMS v AKANDE. SEE LINK BELOW. This is all you need unless you have something very important to add, such as being a blue badge holder when shopping at a retail park, or were charging an EV (no contractual signs at those bays) or that you were a tenant/owner with rights or an expectation to park at a residential site:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257

ignoredletterdotcom

Coupon-mad said:

It's in the Template Defence thread, linked twice there already. The 2 links in that thread for Gladstones claims show paragraph 3.

Just pop that in and a line about the claim not being for the right amount because it states a PCN of £110 which is impossible, and you are done.

  

Can you give me a quick example on how to start it or If I  am to copy something from paragraph 3?

Coupon-mad

I don't understand.

You just quoted the right link. 

ignoredletterdotcom

Coupon-mad said:

I don't understand.

You just quoted the right link. 

OK and this link inside it " https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81571257/#Comment_81571257 "

Do I use whats inside it?

ignoredletterdotcom

ignoredletterdotcom said:

Coupon-mad said:

It's in the Template Defence thread, linked twice there already. The 2 links in that thread for Gladstones claims show paragraph 3.

Just pop that in and a line about the claim not being for the right amount because it states a PCN of £110 which is impossible, and you are done.

  

Can you give me the first line of it so I can try ctlr F to find the correct section

So I will use this below and add the part of the price increase you mentioned;

The Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'."

Coupon-mad

Yep you just need to add a couple of sentences about £110 being impossible for a private parking charge.

It's not a price increase. It's an error in the pleadings that has exaggerated the parking charge.

ignoredletterdotcom

Coupon-mad said:

Yep you just need to add a couple of sentences about £110 being impossible for a private parking charge.

It's not a price increase. It's an error in the pleadings that has exaggerated the parking charge.

Ok This is what I am going to write;

The Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was a little close to a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'."

I believe there is a error in the charge £110 is impossible for a private parking charge. It's not a price increase. It's an error in the pleadings that has exaggerated the parking charge.

I Had once replied to this letter giving information about the driver and have no ever heard anything back regarding this until now about this claim.