IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Another Loss For Gladstones

trisontana
trisontana Posts: 9,472 Forumite
First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
in Parking tickets, fines & parking
This from PPP:- http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=116126&hl=

It's worth quoting this in full to see what a mess that the supposed professional lawyers made of this case. Note the red herring about Beavis and the way the judge slapped it down:-

Hi, all,

Last year I received a parking ticket from JD Parking Consultants in Leeds as I parked at the Hobby Horse pub on Lovell Park Road.

Long story short - usual Gladstones farce, poor correspondence, witness statement clearly written by Gladstones but failed to really make their point.

Gladstones apparently failed to show and the witness did not turn up (one of the company directors) but the other director did show up with no paperwork. The judge instantly asked where his paperwork was and I questioned why the witness wasn't available but this guy pointed to his head and said he had it all up there.

The judge allowed him to start and he mentioned signs which the judge interrupted and pointed to my defence/witness statement and basically wrote the guy off from there. Forbidding signage, no entrance signage, red hand rule, no lighting in the car park - there was no comeback. The guy did bring up Beavis which the judge shut him down again stating what Beavis related to and had no relevance in this case. The guy then said it was a pay and display when the signage and claim clearly state permit holder/no permit displayed so the judge dismissed the case and honoured my costs.

Judge was great and had made his mind up already I believe. It worked out even better that the guy that turned up hadn't even read his own companies witness statement and obviously the judge wouldn't allow him to bring anything what so ever to the table that hadn't been evidenced previously and no evidence in hand to show.

All in all a great day out and I enjoyed the experience!

I will add the supporting evidence etc to the case when i get the chance to help other cases
What part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?
«1

Comments

  • System
    System Posts: 178,093 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Well JD have two cases today. Wonder if it will be a repeat.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    For the court judges, they must be very disappointed, embarrassed
    and shameful about Gladstones making such a mockery of the
    legal system
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    Why should judges feel ashamed because a firm of solicitors puts profit before principal?


    In my opinion, lawyers rank just above Estate Agents in the Probity Stakes.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    The_Deep wrote: »
    Why should judges feel ashamed because a firm of solicitors puts profit before principal?


    Because such shameful solicitors make a mockery of the
    legal system
  • System
    System Posts: 178,093 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Because such shameful solicitors make a mockery of the
    legal system

    Solicitors only work for clients and only follow their instruction. They derive all their work via "instructions" and are therefore above such reproach.

    Well that's the theory anyway.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    IamEmanresu wrote: »
    Solicitors only work for clients and only follow their instruction. They derive all their work via "instructions" and are therefore above such reproach.

    Well that's the theory anyway.

    THEORY ONLY .... instruction is one thing ? giving advice,
    and good advice is another and that is to the peril of IPC
    members .... but they already know that
  • nosferatu1001
    nosferatu1001 Posts: 12,961 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    A lawyers FIRST duty is to the court. Second it is to their client.
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    I understand that even those riff raff who are guilty as sin deserve a fair hearing in court, but firms who take on PPCs as clients do have a hoice, surely they must know that their clients are bent, which, in my eyes, makes them bent ae well,.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • esmerobbo
    esmerobbo Posts: 4,979 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    Did they lose? Bet they still get paid for their incompetence.
  • System
    System Posts: 178,093 Community Admin
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Solicitors only work for clients and only follow their instruction. They derive all their work via "instructions" and are therefore above such reproach.

    Well that's the theory anyway.

    Are some solicitors bent? Here is the theory in action

    https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/judge-criticises-deeply-disturbing-practices-at-defunct-asons/5063068.article

    There appears to be nothing wrong in issuing claims where there is no claimant and no basis for a claim - but that is what courts are there to decide.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards