Northampton Court Claim arrived (MCOL)

henrik777 wrote: »

You can send a witness statement listing the actions taken to illicit information etc

I do feel your pain though, this abuse utterly sucks. I hate judges who let this !!!! fly. They should be retrained or sacked.

The truth is that there are no judges involved in the process until cases have been allocated and land at a local court. Fortunately, judges are starting to catch on to PPC's and their fellow travellers' practices.

I think you may have meant elicit information

As far as Gladstones Particulars of Claim are concerned they fail to comply with CPR r. 16.4(a) in that they do not contain a concise statement of the facts on which they intend to rely. They also fail to comply with Practice Direction 16 paras 7.4 and 7.5 where they fail to set out details of the agreement they assert was breached.

It would be well to include this in your defence (assuming that you have yet to file it - there is no rush to do so provided it arrives by the deadline and that can be emailed to Northampton). This is because when eventually a judge goes through the file he will see the point spelled out. He can then do three things:

a). Ignore it - unlikely I would suggest even if Northampton let everything go by.
b). Direct Gladstones to re-submit fully detailed Particulars by a set date in default of which their original is struck out.
c). Strike the claim out without notice - although Gladstones can still make an application that they be permitted to re-submit.

With this in mind you would be well to make the point in your defence that Gladstones are a firm of solicitors one would presume are fully cognisant of the Civil Procedure Rules and might be expected to submit a fully compliant set of Particulars. You might also want to point out that the Particulars give the impression of being a template intended to deal with a variety of situations that therefore fail to address individual circumstances.

Preparing your witness statement is something for another day although as Henrik777 suggests you should be putting information aside ready to be used. I suggest that you get letters off to the following bodies:

The original PPC - a SAR. The majority I have seen have provided copies of all documents including the original PCN, photos, copies of NtK's and follow-ups.

DVLA requesting details of the company who made the original enquiry. If the application was made by way of a form V888 then ask for a copy of it (they will redact signatures). Although POFA was not then in force you may well discover that no such check was made which begs the question of how they wrote to you - if they ever did.

I also suggest that you carry out a Land Registry search. A print-out of ownership and a map of the relevant boundaries of the land in question will cost you a total of £7 (£3.50 each for the ownership details and another £3.50 for the map).

It would be well worthwhile contacting the owner of the land (at the time) to establish who if anyone had a contract to "enforce" on the land where you parked.

In due course (if Gladstones do not discontinue in the meantime) you will receive a Notice of Allocation Hearing which will give you a date for the case to be heard in court and set out the deadline by which all witness statements and documents must be submitted. If Gladstones fail to submit their bundle by that time then you can properly ask the judge to exclude it. The same will of course apply to you so you need to ensure that you have everything ready - although that is probably something like 4-5 months away yet.

HO87 wrote: »

The truth is that there are no judges involved in the process until cases have been allocated and land at a local court. Fortunately, judges are starting to catch on to PPC's and their fellow travellers' practices.

Indeed but i'm aware from other cases, not just parking ones, where it gets to a hearing and the judge couldn't give a monkeys. (not all where i had an iput either ) There's slightly less formal as small claims might be and there is extracting the urine. The POCs aren't supposed to be Mlls & Boon but they should give any reader a bit of a clue what's going on. You can only take the mick if people, including judges, let you. Sadly they do.

HO87 wrote: »

Indeed, I agree. By the time it gets to a final hearing its unlikely to carry but can be used as part of an argument for costs on the basis of unreasonable conduct (as per CPR r. 27.14(2)(g)) coupled with the poor LBA and their unwillingness to respond to Part 18's/31.

However, what I am suggesting puts the argument in front of a judge when he first goes through the file on it being handed over by Northampton and before he issues the first court-based Notice of Allocation. Although it has not been universally taken up it is most certainly getting there - albeit slowly - and putting in a line to the effect: "...it is respectfully submitted that the court use its case management powers to strike the matter out." might just trigger the required response.

Absolutely, been there got the "incoherent" PoCs booted out and slightly less satisfyingly had another where they had to refile.

If you get a free shot at the target, shoot.

JackBasta wrote: »

I've now been advised (by 2 different sources) to submit a skeleton defence instead? One person has advised a "2-line defence" as below

1. Proof of assignment from the landlord to create contracts and make claims in your own name.

2. Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007

Can anyone tell me why a 2 line skeleton defence would be the way to go over coupon-mad's comprehensive takedown of Gladstone's bad practices, along with a pre-Pofa bit added in?

That advice is utter rubbish.

There is no such thing as a 'skeleton defence'. Your defence statement should mention, however briefly, all the points you will rely on.

You can then expand on those later, when you submit your witness statement and optional skeleton argument, usually 14 days before the hearing date.

If you just relied on those two points, and they provided evidence that they did have landowner authority, and planning permission, you would be marooned in some dark brown water with no visible means of propulsion.

These two 'sources' should have their heads banged against the wall until they stop giving crap advice.

JackBasta wrote: »

I'm currently writing up my defence, which has to be submitted by Friday. Up until this morning I was planning to use a tailored version of coupon-mad's anti Gladstone's defence as can be seen here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71415539#post71415539

and then include an extra "clause" at the top which details that fact that the "event" was pre-Pofa and they haven't proved who was driving.

I've now been advised (by 2 different sources) to submit a skeleton defence instead? One person has advised a "2-line defence" as below

1. Proof of assignment from the landlord to create contracts and make claims in your own name.

2. Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc. under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007

Can anyone tell me why a 2 line skeleton defence would be the way to go over coupon-mad's comprehensive takedown of Gladstone's bad practices, along with a pre-Pofa bit added in?

More confused than ever now!

Google only shows CAG and that isn't what they said for a defence either. They said as part of a 31.14 request.