My CCJ was set aside. Have now received a Trial date for Sept. Please help me understand this situ

Coupon-mad

The only thing you've missed addressing is to expose the added £70 as extortionate (as found by the Government, the work involved in sending a couple of useless threatogram template letters costs a DCA under £9 ... and they DON'T charge parking firms.  They operate under a no win no fee arrangement. So there are clearly no damages at all.

You can't leave the added £70 unchallenged because if (perish the thought) you lose at a hearing, you at least want the Judge to be persuaded to reduce the claim back to the PCN plus fixed court fees

Bennyharvey

Ok thank you. I'll do that. I really can't tell you how much I appreciate your advice, regardless of outcome. 

There's some points in the Gladstone's witness statement I've realised I should perhaps reference and deny/argue against but they all tie in with points I've already made in my WS. Should I bother? 

They also outrageously claim my defence was unsigned but it was 100% signed which I can attach proof of as an exhibit. Should I do that and reference it? 

Coupon-mad

There's some points in the Gladstone's witness statement I've realised I should perhaps reference and deny/argue against but they all tie in with points I've already made in my WS. Should I bother? 
They also outrageously claim my defence was unsigned but it was 100% signed which I can attach proof of as an exhibit. Should I do that and reference it?

Cover both those points at the hearing if they come up.

Bennyharvey

I submitted my Witness Statement two weeks ago and on Wednesday this week I have my hearing. I'm nervous! But I will be glad to get it out of the way. 

On Friday I received a 'Skeleton Argument' from Gladstones and I'm quite shocked at how intimidating and insulting it is! It ONLY lists reasons why my costs sought are "exaggerated, excessive and disproportionate". There is zero comment on my actual defence and witness statement, they only comment on reasons I shouldn't be claiming for costs.

There are several typos and inaccuracies. And my favourite part is that they write "The time and therefore sum sought is exaggerated, and my Company would like the Court to note that ironically the Defendant (for the most part) is using a generic defence template for their witness statement which can be found on the internet and it is

highly doubtful that the Defendant would understand the complexities of all the references to the

Civil Procedure Rules, the requirements in the Protection and Freedoms Act (POFA) and in 

established case law, which is often the case when a Defendant is questioned about such references

at Court. Therefore, everything that the Defendant has outlined is not accepted and denied by my

Company."

However they have clearly copied and pasted part of this paragraph because the font size dramatically changes midway through! 

I'm spending today and tomorrow after work preparing for my hearing on Wednesday and I'm writing up my main pointers / crib sheet. Any tips welcome! I've been reading the experiences of others on here which has helped a great deal. 

I'm guessing I'm not to submit my own 'Skeleton Argument'? I was surprised they could submit one only 3 working days before the hearing. 

Bennyharvey

Further to my update above, I didn't even once mention POFA (abbreviated or otherwise) in my Witness Statement or Defence. They're just making up rubbish, and copying and pasting. I really hope the Judge will see that. 

I apologise for my questions re Skeleton Argument, I've since researched and understood that aspect.

I'd like to ask, I've received the usual Gladstones line of "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."

Does that mean no-one from PCM will turn up but someone from Gladstones will? Or just no-one at all? 

Coupon-mad

A rep might turn up. It's about 50-50.

Trust the Judge to see what you see...

  

P.S. you have done everything you need to do. No skeleton argument needed.  Here's someone at a hearing tomorrow:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80994991/#Comment_80994991

Bennyharvey

Thank you. Really appreciate all of your advice and kind words. Everyone here is great.

It makes me so frustrated how the parking companies use bullying tactics and exploitation of the courts system as a money making machine! I've found this all so time consuming and stressful. 

I'll be happy to see the back of Wednesday!

1505grandad

"It makes me so frustrated how the parking companies use bullying tactics and exploitation of the courts system as a money making machine! I've found this all so time consuming and stressful."

Not forgetting of course that it usually starts with your private data being provided by the DVLA who have been aware for years of the scam industry but still sell it willy-nilly for the princely sum of £2.50.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-13201071/Drivers-issued-35-000-fines-day-private-parking-firms-DVLA-continues-sell-details-operators-2-50-pop.html

"Motorists in Britain are sent more than 35,000 parking tickets every day by private companies - and the DVLA is raking in almost £90,000 per day as a result, new analysis reveals."

LDast

Gladstones use bullying tactics in all their WS. I have recently provided assistance with a Defendants WS where the same template mentioned above has been used by Gladstone's, however, it was in their WS, not a Skeleton or SWS and was received before the defendants deadline.

For reference, here are the defendants paragraphs responding to the same accusations about "internet defence" and ability to understand the law. It is part of a much longer WS that I believe would do for all Gladstones issued claims:

Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to Understand CPR and Legal Issues

31. In paragraph 23 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant’s legal representative — who, as already noted, has no direct involvement in the events surrounding the alleged claim — makes a wholly inappropriate and offensive assertion about my ability to understand the complexities of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The witness claims, without any basis, that I have relied on a "generic defence" found on the internet and implies that I do not understand the references I have made to the law and CPR requirements.

32. This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack. The claimant's witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level of education, professional background, or capacity to understand legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly, embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal professionals would resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document. As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the same legal expertise as the claimant’s solicitors. However, I have made every effort to research and present a reasonable defence. The claimant’s solicitors, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard of compliance with legal procedures, especially with respect to the Civil Procedure Rules.

33. I respectfully remind the court that I am a litigant in person. I have every right to research legal matters and use any available resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.

34. Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable behavior on the part of the claimant's solicitors. Such conduct is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this behaviour violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which requires the parties to act justly and fairly.

35. I respectfully request that the court take note of this unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly on their conduct and should be considered when determining whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the proceedings.

BikingBud

Like 34 and 35, really good.

It's high time that these became front and centre arguments alongside late cancellations as absolute markers about unreasonable behaviour and should lead to investigation and sanction.

Professional - >🤡