Court Report - St Helens -Another Gladstones Epic Fail

bargepole

Case no. K4GF0G64 – PCM (UK) -v- Company A , Before Deputy District Judge Ming (telephone) 

This was a residential case, in which the MD of Company A had picked up 6 x PCNs for parking a company van at his flat in Barking without a permit. The total claim, including the usual fake ‘debt recovery costs’, was for £1,124.28. 

He had lived in the flat since 2015, when there was no parking management, and PCM were brought in around 2017, supposedly to deter random interlopers from a nearby estate. The Claimant’s WS said that the residents had been sent a letter advising them of the new permit system, however he never received the letter, or a permit.

As the D was a Limited Company, the case was transferred to St Helens, the nearest Court to Gladstones. They sent in a Caimant’s bundle, comprising some 163 pages, and including the Head Lease as evidence. All that this said about parking was that residents may not park caravans or boats, which he didn’t. His Tenancy was completely silent on the subject of parking, and we intended to rely on the ‘quiet enjoyment of the property’ clause, as well as the fact that any letters or signage from the Claimant could not constitute a variation to the Lease, or the Tenancy.

 When the hearing started, there was no rep on the call for the Claimant, and they hadn’t given the Court a number to call, or sent a CPR 27.9 notice to say they wouldn’t be attending. I pointed out to the Judge that their witness statement had been written and signed by a paralegal working for Gladstones, and as such did not comply with the Hearing Notice which said ‘… must include statements from the parties themselves’.

 The Judge said that the onus was on the Claimant to prove their case, and by not filing a WS and not attending, they had failed to do so, therefore claim dismissed.

She also agreed that their conduct crossed the threshold of unreasonable behaviour pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g), and awarded my client my £130 fee for advocating at the hearing.

 There seems to be a growing trend for Gladstones, and the rest of the usual suspects, to write and sign the Claimant WS in their own name. This means, in most cases, that it does not comply with the Court directions, and Defendants should raise this issue as a preliminary point, which will find favour with most Judges.

Bongo10

As a long time reader of these boards, making me wary of private car parks, I admire the help that you give people.  Quite by chance I was today sent an email to the following link setting out how Witness Statements should be prepared (by Pinsent Masons, who are a real solicitor!).  I thought it might be useful!
Witness statements in England and Wales (pinsentmasons.com)

bargepole

Bongo10 said:

As a long time reader of these boards, making me wary of private car parks, I admire the help that you give people.  Quite by chance I was today sent an email to the following link setting out how Witness Statements should be prepared (by Pinsent Masons, who are a real solicitor!).  I thought it might be useful!
Witness statements in England and Wales (pinsentmasons.com)

Yes, the advice from Pinsent Masons is really more applicable to Fast Track and Multi-Track cases, where strict rules of evidence apply.

In Small |Claims, and parking cases in particular, where Skeleton Arguments are not normally required, it is standard practice for the Claimant's WS to include legal arguments as to why they believe the claim should succeed, and the Defendant's WS should also state the legal reasons why the claim should fail.

99% of Judges will be happy with this arrangement, as it means less parperwork to clog up their already very busy caseload schedule.

Castle

bargepole said:

Case no. K4GF0G64 – PCM (UK) -v- Company A , Before Deputy District Judge Ming (telephone) 

This was a residential case, in which the MD of Company A had picked up 6 x PCNs for parking a company van at his flat in Barking without a permit. The total claim, including the usual fake ‘debt recovery costs’, was for £1,124.28. 

 

"Ming the Merciless" for any Flash Gordon fans.

LDast

bargepole said:

There seems to be a growing trend for Gladstones, and the rest of the usual suspects, to write and sign the Claimant WS in their own name. This means, in most cases, that it does not comply with the Court directions, and Defendants should raise this issue as a preliminary point, which will find favour with most Judges.

How about this as a para in the "Preliminary Matters" section of the Defence?:

As a preliminary matter, the Defendant wishes to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by [Paralegal or Solicitor's Name] of [Solicitor Firm name] Solicitors, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. As [Paralegal or Solicitor's Name] does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

The above could be added to almost all defences together with the PoFA 4(5) breach para. The only other requirement for a preliminary matter is whether the CEL v Chan paras are also required.

bargepole

LDast said:

bargepole said:

There seems to be a growing trend for Gladstones, and the rest of the usual suspects, to write and sign the Claimant WS in their own name. This means, in most cases, that it does not comply with the Court directions, and Defendants should raise this issue as a preliminary point, which will find favour with most Judges.

How about this as a para in the "Preliminary Matters" section of the Defence?:

As a preliminary matter, the Defendant wishes to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by [Paralegal or Solicitor's Name] of [Solicitor Firm name] Solicitors, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. As [Paralegal or Solicitor's Name] does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

The above could be added to almost all defences together with the PoFA 4(5) breach para. The only other requirement for a preliminary matter is whether the CEL v Chan paras are also required.

That won't work. At the stage of drafting the Defence, the D will not have received a WS from the Claimant, or their solicitors. That comes much later in the process, usually 14 days before the Trial Date, when both sides should simultaneously exchange trial bundles.

The suggested para. above is sonthing that the D could raise as a preliminary submission at the start of the hearing.

LDast

Of course. Thank you.

UnloadTheShelves

 I pointed out to the Judge that their witness statement had been written and signed by a paralegal working for Gladstones, and as such did not comply with the Hearing Notice which said ‘… must include statements from the parties themselves’.

AND

 There seems to be a growing trend for Gladstones, and the rest of the usual suspects, to write and sign the Claimant WS in their own name. This means, in most cases, that it does not comply with the Court directions, and Defendants should raise this issue as a preliminary point, which will find favour with most Judges.

Hello,

I am researching different threads in prep for my own upcoming hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice against Gladstones. The above quotes from Bargepole post caught my attention and I am wondering if the same could apply to our case (my husband is the Defendant, I will act as his Lay Representative on the day. 

They sent this email:

Dear Mr XYZ,

 

We act for the Claimant in the above matter.  
 Please find attached, by way of service, the Claimant's Witness Statement.     
 In accordance with CPR 27.9 our Client hereby gives notice that it will not be attending the hearing.  
   We confirm the court has been informed and that we have asked the Court to decide the claim in our Client's absence based on the evidence submitted.  
   We confirm the statement has been filed at the Court  

Yours sincerely,  
Joshua (FIRST NAME ONLY)
Legal Assistant
  Gladstones Solicitors Limited
Unit B, 1st Floor
210 Cygnet Court
Centre Park
Warrington
WA1 1PP____


The WS itself starts with "I, FULL NAME of Gladstones Solicitors Limited... blah blah, will say as follows..."
The WS is also signed by the same Joshua using first initial and Surname. 
MY QUESTION: Is Legal Assistant same as paralegal? 

Does this comply with the Court Directions please? If not, I would love to point this out in my own WS that I am yet to write so would really appreciate your advice. Many, many thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

Yes - clearly if it's a Gladstones employee (regardless of job title) it's not the Claimant.

Wording for this point has already been written in several threads by @LDast I think.