Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 9th Jun 17, 6:47 PM
    • 214Posts
    • 160Thanks
    Sassii
    my draft defence Gladstones - PCM Court action
    • #1
    • 9th Jun 17, 6:47 PM
    my draft defence Gladstones - PCM Court action 9th Jun 17 at 6:47 PM
    Hi All
    Thanks for all can help me for my case as PCM want to take me to court for 3 PCNs. As PCM replace their signage from POFA12 to Contract term I sent to them Notice of Cancellation letter long time ago. Agian same process up to reach to court claim from Gladestones which that was my 1 st time. I spent all last 3 weeks digging and please find my draft defence for advise.

    https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/16884/epson007-pdf-801k?da=y


    Statement of Defence
    IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

    CLAIM No:

    BETWEEN:

    PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxxxxx (Defendant)

    I am representing myself due to the cost of a solicitor and due to this I request some leeway or in other words please take it easy on me I am new at this.

    (1) It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
    (2) As the car mentioned in the particulars of claim was a company car which all company employees & others are insured to drive that car & the parking events / alleged breaches were 7-10 months ago, so nobody can remember who was driving. It’s strictly requested that PCM to provide any evidence of who the driver was.
    (3) I never knew what are Gladstones Solicitors was talking about as their letters dated xxxxx have no cross reference to any PCN numbers up to I received Letter Before Claim dated xxxxx so all of that time Gladstones Solicitors was misleading me.
    (4) I have received no copies of any disclosure of any documents from Gladstones Solicitors Ltd with the exception of the Letter Before Claim & court summons. Although I asked for that documents on my letters to Gladestones Solicitors dated xxxxxx & on my letters to PCM dated xxxxx but they never send the requested documents. This is likely to mean I may have to alter my defence in light of any new evidence.
    So in light of the little information I have please find below:
    (a) Charge dated xxxxx:
    - There is no contract in force between the claimant & defendant as Cancelation Of Contact Notice (COCN sent to PCM on xxxxx before issuing the charge in question. The signage on the site stated that parking will be under contractual terms and Gladstones Solicitors letter dated xxxxxx saying ‘’your contract was with our client’’ while there is no contract in force as mentioned above. (Signage photo, COCN letter, Proof of post & confirmation photo attached).
    - The signage was located on UKPN property which I was working for & I can confirm there is no contract between PCM & UKPN, so it’s strictly requested that PCM to show they have a permission to fix their signage on UKPN property.
    - Claimant & their representative strictly required to provide the full documents requested in the above mentioned letters.

    (b) Charges dated 10/10/2016:
    - I have only unclear copy of NTK dated xxxxx saying ‘’this notice is given in line with schedule 4 of the POFA 2012’’ while the the signage on the site stated that parking will be under contractual terms and Gladstones Solicitors letter dated xxxxx saying ‘’your contract was with our client’’. That makes confusion of the reason of that charge.

    - Claimant & their representative strictly required to provide the full documents requested in the above mentioned letters.

    (c) Charge date xxxx: I have no documents relating to that charge so Claimant & their representative strictly required to provide the full documents requested in the above mentioned letters. The signage on the site stated that parking will be under contractual terms and Gladstones Solicitors letter dated xxxxx saying ‘’your contract was with our client’’ while there is no contract in force as mentioned above.
    (5) I have no idea at this stage whether I am being pursued under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for this debt or whether this is for civil trespass. A parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

    (6) I have never been supplied with any confirmation from the claimant or his agents that they actually own or have a contract with the landowner of the land in question which would allow them issue penalty tickets although I asked them several times to provide that contract but they never responded. So I have no idea if this is just a speculative invoice.

    (7) I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court in support of the application, despite sending a CPR 31.14 request to the claimant's solicitors on xxxxxx.

    (8) Claimant & his representative should supply a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.
    (9) Gladstones Solicitors Ltd has supplied no contract showing they have the right to pursue cases on behalf of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. It is request that this right is confirmed with a signed unredacted contract.
    (10) The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal representative’s costs". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court.
    (11) Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the above vehicle at the time of the alleged events it is averred that the Defendant was not the driver on the date and time mentioned in the particulars and the Claimant is put to strict proof in this respect.
    PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015).

    (12) The government have put in place a mechanism whereby liability can be transferred from driver to keeper, under the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, sch 4. The claimant has made the conscious decision not to avail themselves of this legislation and use a notice to keeper which fails to comply with 8.1, 8.2a, 8.2c, 8.2f, 8.8b, 9.2.a, 9.8b of the Act.
    - 17. Further the Claimant must also demonstrate that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper.
    - The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a “relevant obligation” existed and that the Claimant has followed the correct procedure to transfer liability to the Registered Keeper.
    - In the absence of strict proof as to the existence or otherwise of a “relevant obligation” and as to properly transferring liability to the Registered Keeper the court is invited to strike the matter out.
    (13) On the other hand it is believed that the Claimant may seek to rely on a rather
    unique interpretation of the judgement in Elliott -v- Loake
    - endeavour to persuade the court that the case created a precedent amounting to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver where no other evidence or admission exists and thereby prove his allegations.
    - I submit that this interpretation actually represents a very considerable reworking of the case and does not fairly convey the findings.
    - The reality is that no such precedent was created and that Mr Loake was found guilty (it was a criminal matter) on a surfeit of evidence including forensic evidence of being the driver at the time of a road traffic accident which he had previously lied to the police about. Crucially this evidence proved the case to a criminal standard not simply on a balance of probabilities as applies in the instant matter.
    (14) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
    (15) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
    - No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant showing the PCN numbers mentioned in Letter Before Claim and no initial information was sent to the Defendant although it was requested.
    - I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, especially bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
    (16) The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CPR16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide a date, due date, and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors.
    - Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 – 7.5: CPR 16.4 Contents of the particulars of claim
    (1) Particulars of claim must include –
    (a) a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies
    (b) if the claimant is seeking interest, a statement to that effect and the details set out in paragraph (2);They have stated they are seeking interest from date x to date y, but provide no details (the defendant clearly told the Claimant that the debt was denied and that they were not the driver. The Defendant is not therefore liable for the Claimant’s delay in bringing a claim).
    (e) such other matters as may be set out in a practice direction.

    - PD 16 paras 7.3 – 7.5
    7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:
    (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and
    (2) any general conditions of sale incorporated in the contract should also be attached (but where the contract is or the documents constituting the agreement are bulky this practice direction is complied with by attaching or serving only the relevant parts of the contract or documents).
    7.4 Where a claim is based upon an oral agreement, the particulars of claim should set out the contractual words used and state by whom, to whom, when and where they were spoken.
    7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.
    (17) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action.
    HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.
    I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
    I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
    (18) The defendant wrote to the claimant on 06/1/2017asking for:

    1. Who is the party that contracted with your Client for that claim? I require their contact details and the full identity of the landowner.
    2. Is that charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
    3. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
    4. Is that charge based on an agreed 'fee' for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no. If so, please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
    5. Please provide a copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site & locations of all signs at the site as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle.


    The claimant has responded on his letter dated 31/01/2017 refusing to provide the documents requested.Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overiding objective’ in the pre action protocol.

    - As Gladsones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no excuse for these omissions.

    The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence.
    (19) In the pre court stage the Claimant’s solicitor refused to provide me with the necessary information I requested in order to defend myself against the alleged debt.
    They did not send me a Letter before Action that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
    a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
    b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely.
    c) How the “charge amount” of 160 pounds has been calculated and justified.
    d) Any form of possible negotiation or ADR offered.
    (20) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.
    (21) If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.
    - It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
    d) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    e) Absent the elements of a contract, there can be no breach of contract.
    f) It is denied that the signs on display fall under any of the classes in Schedule 1 or Schedule 3 of The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 or that the Claimant has advertisement consent for the signs.
    g) The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    h) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    (22)It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

    The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons and I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim
    I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true
Page 8
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 12th Feb 18, 12:19 AM
    • 1,183 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Jeepers! That form looks as though it was filled in by a 3 y.o. with some Crayolas. It is also a farrago of citations, dates and hearings.

    1. What is the order that they are appealing against? My recollection was that there was:
    (a) a failure to pay court fees that got them struck out;
    (b) an order for costs;
    (c) a hearing in which the PPC applied to set aside the costs order (not the strike out).

    They specifically state the 04/01/18 order is appealed (and nothing else), so what exactly does that say?

    2. If I'm correct at (1) above (and that's a big IF) then in principle, the appeal is limited to the costs issues, not the strike out of their case as (i) their set aside application never sought to challenge the strike out (ii) the court never reinstated the claim (iii) they are out of time to challenge the ORIGINAL order, namely the strike out.

    It appears as if the Claimant seeks to use the costs hearing/issues as a "back door" to reinstate the claim. Without seeing the order it's tricky to fully understand the position.

    In any case, you need to prepare a skeleton argument and file it asap in response.

    You should know that the PPC is technically correct (albeit that they don't make the point well) that they should have had more time/notification before the costs hearing in September. However, that disregards the points raised above.

    Other comments:
    Evidence of an email asking the court to take a fee is not the same as establishing that there were funds in the account and that the fee account number provided was correct.

    Whilst one may assume an automated fee payment scheme is working in normal circumstances, if it were me, once I was under threat of strike out, I would indeed get off my bony [donkey] to double-check the fee had been paid out, not just send an email and assume it would happen.

    Denton specifically notes that pressures of work (i.e. volumes of cases) is not a good reason for failure to comply. The PPC has a claim in negligence against Gladstones to the extent that they are out of pocket.
    Last edited by Johnersh; 12-02-2018 at 12:21 AM.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 12th Feb 18, 7:27 PM
    • 214 Posts
    • 160 Thanks
    Sassii
    Struck out order
    https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/20465/epson037-pdf-28k?da=y

    Cost award order
    https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/20466/epson036-pdf-23k?da=y

    Set aside dismissed order

    https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/20464/epson038-pdf-14k?da=y

    1. What is the order that they are appealing against?.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    They appealed against the set aside dismissed order on 04/01/2018

    They specifically state the 04/01/18 order is appealed (and nothing else), so what exactly does that say?
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    as the 3rd link above and they also appealed on behalf of myself for my costs application

    2. If I'm correct at (1) above (and that's a big IF) then in principle, the appeal is limited to the costs issues, not the strike out of their case as (i) their set aside application never sought to challenge the strike out (ii) the court never reinstated the claim (iii) they are out of time to challenge the ORIGINAL order, namely the strike out.

    It appears as if the Claimant seeks to use the costs hearing/issues as a "back door" to reinstate the claim. Without seeing the order it's tricky to fully understand the position.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    you are right and they tried to reinstate the claim in the set aside hearing but the judge shut them down and told them you just asking to set aside the costs order dated 18/09/2017.

    [I]You should know that the PPC is technically correct (albeit that they don't make the point well) that they should have had more time/notification before the costs hearing in September.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    They used words like clear dates & business dates which I think it has no weigh as the law state only dates not working dates, am I correct?.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 12th Feb 18, 8:49 PM
    • 1,183 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    Johnersh
    So it appears based on what you say, that Gladstones are still arguing the merits of the claim when they have no proper basis to do that and are out of time to appeal the strike out. Interesting.

    They are in my view (and for what that's worth) stuffed on that. I think only the costs should be in play.

    The CPR requires that all days should be clear days. There may be an argument that the court truncated the time as the CPR also states 'unless the court orders otherwise' read the sections of the CPR referred to by the parking company.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • logician
    • By logician 12th Feb 18, 10:01 PM
    • 194 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    logician


    By the way, an appeal does NOT stand as a stay (ie suspension) of the original order. The order under appeal is still enforceable. So unless they've applied for a stay, you are entitled to receive those costs.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Unfortunately, they have applied for the stay in the paperwork.

    Jeepers! That form looks as though it was filled in by a 3 y.o. with some Crayolas. It is also a farrago of citations, dates and hearings.


    They specifically state the 04/01/18 order is appealed (and nothing else), so what exactly does that say?

    2. If I'm correct at (1) above (and that's a big IF) then in principle, the appeal is limited to the costs issues, not the strike out of their case as (i) their set aside application never sought to challenge the strike out (ii) the court never reinstated the claim (iii) they are out of time to challenge the ORIGINAL order, namely the strike out.

    It appears as if the Claimant seeks to use the costs hearing/issues as a "back door" to reinstate the claim. Without seeing the order it's tricky to fully understand the position.

    In any case, you need to prepare a skeleton argument and file it asap in response.

    You should know that the PPC is technically correct (albeit that they don't make the point well) that they should have had more time/notification before the costs hearing in September. However, that disregards the points raised above.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Yes the form is a shambles with the handwritten dates inserted.

    It does look as if they are just appealing the set aside application on the basis that:

    Layman speak below:

    a) They did not receive D's letter of 05/09/2017

    b) They maintain the application for payment of the original hearing fee was correct given the authority provided via email

    c) If, no hearing fee had been received, then why did a costs only hearing go ahead.

    d) After strike out, insufficient time notification received for costs only hearing.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Feb 18, 10:05 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,467 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So it appears based on what you say, that Gladstones are still arguing the merits of the claim when they have no proper basis to do that and are out of time to appeal the strike out. Interesting.

    They are in my view (and for what that's worth) stuffed on that. I think only the costs should be in play.

    The CPR requires that all days should be clear days. There may be an argument that the court truncated the time as the CPR also states 'unless the court orders otherwise' read the sections of the CPR referred to by the parking company.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Take Johnersh's advice. He's legally qualified.
    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 13th Feb 18, 3:41 PM
    • 214 Posts
    • 160 Thanks
    Sassii
    skeleton argument
    Below is the skeleton argument would like to file to court, It's highly appreciated if you please review it
    Last edited by Sassii; 19-02-2018 at 8:40 AM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Feb 18, 4:59 PM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,467 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    (5) The Defendant want wishes to bring to the court's attention
    This part needs re-writing, as the English isn't quite right (don't use shortened slang like 'didn't' for 'did not', and '1st' should be written in full: 'first'. Also 'confessed' should be 'admitted':

    (7) As the Appellant didn't ask to set aside or to appeal the 1st court order, although he had the time to do so and that time run out, he confessed that the Defendant didn't owe any money to him so there was no case from beginning and he confessed that the court trial fees didn't pay on time.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 13th Feb 18, 7:12 PM
    • 1,183 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Deleted as requested by the o/p (I'm nice like that)
    Last edited by Johnersh; 13-02-2018 at 11:12 PM.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 14th Feb 18, 7:28 AM
    • 214 Posts
    • 160 Thanks
    Sassii
    Deleted as requested by the o/p (I'm nice like that)
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Thanks Johnersh
    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 18th Feb 18, 9:32 PM
    • 214 Posts
    • 160 Thanks
    Sassii
    N162 form
    Hi all

    Court cover letter came with pcm appeal invite me to file a respondent's notice N162. link below

    https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/20484/epson039-pdf-15k?da=y

    Could you please guide me how to fill N162 form as it looks for me it's for appellant not for defendant.

    Regards
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 18th Feb 18, 11:37 PM
    • 1,183 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    Johnersh
    The N162 is designed to deal with both the response to an appeal and also (if so required) a cross-appeal. You are not required to appeal any element of the order if you don't wish to.

    Hypothetical example (this is not your case, but for explanation only):
    1. C loses his case and D wins, but D gets only his normal costs.
    2. C appeals on the basis of an error of fact or law, contending that D should have lost.
    3. D prepares a response to uphold the order that gives him the win, but cross-appeals on the basis that the costs order was wrong and he should get unreasonable costs.


    It's a matter for you as to your arguments (I don't tell anyone what their case should be), but you may well be content with sticking with the order you've got, so can complete the section relating to the upholding of the order. You can prepare a separate skelly and lodge it with the form (in addition) if that is easier.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 19th Feb 18, 9:33 AM
    • 214 Posts
    • 160 Thanks
    Sassii
    You are not required to appeal any element of the order if you don't wish to.

    3. D prepares a response to uphold the order that gives him the win, but cross-appeals on the basis that the costs order was wrong and he should get unreasonable costs.[/I]
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Why I need to appeal / cross appeal already pcm & Gladstones did that on behalf of myself as they appealed the whole order not only their dismissed.

    Thanks
    Last edited by Sassii; 19-02-2018 at 11:05 AM.
    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 13th Apr 18, 10:14 PM
    • 214 Posts
    • 160 Thanks
    Sassii
    Hi All

    3 weeks ago received the below letter from courts

    https://www.keepandshare.com/doc16/20798/epson043-pdf-15k?da=y

    Gladstones ignored that court order as well as I Phoned the court today and they informed they didn't receive the required documents from Gladstones yet.

    I'm going to send the below letter to court so could any one review and comments and give me more ideas. Regards

    IN THE COUNTY COURT AT

    CLAIM No:

    BETWEEN:

    PARKING CONTROL MANAGEMENT (UK) LIMITED (Claimant / Appellant)

    -and-

    xxxx (Defendant / Respondent)


    I am xxxx and I am the Defendant / Respondent in this matter. I Knew from Romford County court and Central London County Court official when I called the courts on xxxx that the claimant / Appellant practiced his habit by ignoring the court order dated xxxx typed on xxxx and did not send the documents requested by court on time and up to now.
    As the Deputy District Judge xxxx refused Claimant permission to appeal request at the hearing dated xxxx and as Claimant / Appellant ignored the court order mentioned above, The Defendant / Respondent ask the court to refuse / strike out the appellant permission to appeal request and consider the Defendant / Respondent costs application attached.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 13th Apr 18, 11:16 PM
    • 1,183 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    Johnersh
    I wouldn't send that. On my reading, the simple fact is that PCM has never had permission to appeal and has missed each and every court time limit when afforded the opportunity to deal with the court. They now need to pay.

    I'd write to PCM requesting payment of your £1,500 plus interest accruing at judgment rate at 8% per annum, which is £0.33 per day within the next 14 days, failing which you will commence enforcement action.

    A successful stat demand would permit you to petition for bankruptcy. Other options include getting a high court enforcement officer (i.e. a bailiff) to seize company assets to the value of, if it remains unpaid.

    Happily companies house accounts suggest they should be good for the cash.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • jkdd77
    • By jkdd77 13th Apr 18, 11:30 PM
    • 264 Posts
    • 342 Thanks
    jkdd77
    What happened in the OP's other thread, where leave to appeal against a wrongful refusal of set-aside was itself wrongly refused, leaving the OP owing PCM a large sum of money despite there never being a valid debt in the first place?

    Would it be possible for the OP to use this judgment to offset against the money supposedly owed to PCM following the erroneous refusal of leave to appeal against the default CCJ?
    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 14th Apr 18, 12:01 AM
    • 214 Posts
    • 160 Thanks
    Sassii
    QUOTE=Johnersh;74159352]I wouldn't send that. On my reading, the simple fact is that PCM has never had permission to appeal and has missed each and every court time limit when afforded the opportunity to deal with the court. They now need to pay.[/QUOTE]
    Last edited by Sassii; 16-04-2018 at 8:45 AM.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 14th Apr 18, 12:13 AM
    • 1,183 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    Johnersh
    PCM have never had permission to appeal.

    There is nothing to strike out. You're done. There is no case to hold up since you've already won it.

    Now that they have failed to appeal, you can (and should) seek payment.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 14th Apr 18, 12:18 AM
    • 1,183 Posts
    • 2,249 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Would it be possible for the OP to use this judgment to offset against the money supposedly owed to PCM following the erroneous refusal of leave to appeal against the default CCJ?
    No. The money is owed because the court said so (sadly).

    Where the cases are separate, the only method of offsetting afaik would be if the o/p agreed terms with pcm to do so as a simple commercial agreement.
    "The best advice I ever got was that knowledge is power and to keep reading."
    DISCLAIMER: I post thoughts as & when they occur. I don't advise. You are your own person and decision-maker. I'm unlikely to respond to DMs seeking personal advice. It's ill-advised & you lose the benefit of a group "take" on events.
    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 28th Sep 18, 8:16 PM
    • 214 Posts
    • 160 Thanks
    Sassii
    New events
    Hi all

    Now the court ordered pcm to serve a skeleton argument and transcript of set aside hearing. Also court stayed the set aside order order. pcm one day before serving due date asked the court for time extension and transfer the case to another court. do I need to ask the court to reject pcm requests specially transfer the court to other court as it will disadvantage to me if the appeal heard in court away from my home.

    Regards
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Sep 18, 2:43 AM
    • 64,896 Posts
    • 77,467 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    do I need to ask the court to reject pcm requests specially transfer the court to other court as it will disadvantage to me if the appeal heard in court away from my home.
    Yes!

    Object to BOTH requests, the Claimant has had ample time and cannot move an individual Defendant away from his/her local court.

    They are taking the Mickey.

    Include in your letter to the court, the form needed to enforce the debt for you (the money PC owe you):

    https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/enforce-a-judgment

    and ask the Court to enforce it now, including your £25 fee and 8% interest.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 29-09-2018 at 2:45 AM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

159Posts Today

1,299Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Many saying sexism or ego. My suspicion as someone who works in TV is that this is a format point. I'd think whe? https://t.co/AXfrv5YqKA

  • I do always ponder when watching apprentice why Lord Sugar is "Lord Sugar" but Baroness Bradey is Karen. #bbctheapprentice

  • Lord Sugar just said "she's talking like she's a 50 year old, she knows it inside out?" Genuine question if ther? https://t.co/6cZJ9d2Cni

  • Follow Martin