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
    • Staatsgrenze
    • By Staatsgrenze 11th Jan 20, 1:30 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Staatsgrenze
    County Court Claim
    • #1
    • 11th Jan 20, 1:30 PM
    County Court Claim 11th Jan 20 at 1:30 PM
    Gladstones Solicitors have sent me a County Court Claim Form dated 6th Jan 2020. Which gives me 7 days on Monday 13th Jan 2020 to respond. I have registered with MCOL and go-ing on the advice from various posts I’d like to defend my case if in fact its worthwhile in this instance. At this stage I intend to respond with Acknowledgement of Service giving me 28 days to draft and return my defence.
    This all stems from a 'failure to display a valid parking ticket' at my place of employment on 23rd Feb 2018. I had actually purchased a rub off ticket for that day at a cost of 50p although I did rub off the March month in error instead of the Feb the date of the 23rd was correct..I did actually purchase a ticket for the day in question –although it’s irrelevant from their POV.
    I presented this minor error to One Parking at the time but it was rejected. which was probably an automated response.
    I ignored threatening letters from One Parking Solution LTD and heard nothing from them after approx June 2018. Then of course Gladstones get involved sending me unsigned letters in Nov 2019 which I duly ignored. As expected they issued a County Court Claim against me this week with the added fees, this being Court fee £25 and Legal Rep costs £60.
    • So, I would like some advice on what the strength of my defence actually has if any and
    how I should structure my written defence .
    • Also what would I expect after I send my defence? Will I be expected to attend court or is
    the defence decided upon by them independently?
    • Would I incur any added costs if my defence is rejected?

    Any advice warmly appreciated.
    Thanks in advance.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 11th Jan 20, 3:00 PM
    • 26,776 Posts
    • 35,032 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 11th Jan 20, 3:00 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Jan 20, 3:00 PM
    Your questions are answered in the newbies faq sticky thread near the top of the forum , in post #2

    If you lost in court then you would object to the fake additional costs meaning it should be less , not more , read the threads by CEC16 and basher52 and the abuse of process thread by beamerguy

    Do the AOS online , email a SAR to OPS , then start drafting your defence based on all the other OPS threads posted on here recently, post your proposed draft below

    The claimant is OPS , not Gladstone's , the form was issued by the CCBC in Northampton
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Jan 20, 4:00 PM
    • 19,591 Posts
    • 24,983 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #3
    • 11th Jan 20, 4:00 PM
    • #3
    • 11th Jan 20, 4:00 PM
    Gladstones Solicitors have sent me a County Court Claim Form dated 6th Jan 2020.
    Originally posted by Staatsgrenze
    With a Claim Issue Date of 6th January, you have until Monday 27th January to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 12th January, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To file an AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

    Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th February 2020 to file your Defence.

    That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not, chase the CCBC until it is.

    Having filed your Defence, your work is not yet complete.
    1. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.
    2. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then complete it as described by bargepole in his 'what happens when' post.
    3. The completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to the same address and in the same way as your Defence was filed earlier.
    4. Send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant - to their address on your Claim Form.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Jan 20, 4:07 PM
    • 80,674 Posts
    • 95,208 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 11th Jan 20, 4:07 PM
    • #4
    • 11th Jan 20, 4:07 PM
    As it is One Parking Solution, is this is Sussex and if so, the usual offer applies:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76698503#post76698503

    Even if you are not in Sussex, the first 3 paragraphs of that link still help you.

    And BTW, OPS lose every case we see and go to watch, where the D turns up!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Staatsgrenze
    • By Staatsgrenze 12th Jan 20, 10:02 AM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Staatsgrenze
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 20, 10:02 AM
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 20, 10:02 AM
    Hi Coupon Mad.
    Yes the car park in question is in West Sussex. In which section of the link are the 3 paragraphs you are referring to?
    Would the land owner being my employer actually be worth anything in my defence?
    Thanks.
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 12th Jan 20, 10:55 AM
    • 8,009 Posts
    • 9,070 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 20, 10:55 AM
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 20, 10:55 AM
    I would suggest post # 14 of that thread that was linked, go and search for the basher52 thread then go and read the defence. Just hit community at the top of the forum page, members, search members and input basher52. Note it is case sensitive.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 20, 8:34 PM
    • 80,674 Posts
    • 95,208 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 20, 8:34 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 20, 8:34 PM
    Hi Coupon Mad.
    Yes the car park in question is in West Sussex. In which section of the link are the 3 paragraphs you are referring to?
    Originally posted by Staatsgrenze
    The one it lands on, if you let it settle on the post I linked (NOT THREAD). Do not click on it before it settles on the POST I linked you to read.

    I will add you to my allowed private messages list, an can help you in person if you like, if I a free and if your local court is Worthing?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Staatsgrenze
    • By Staatsgrenze 14th Jan 20, 6:01 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Staatsgrenze
    • #8
    • 14th Jan 20, 6:01 PM
    • #8
    • 14th Jan 20, 6:01 PM
    Hi Coupon.
    Thanks for the PM privilege.
    I Sent a SAR to One Parking requesting all documents they hold on me and used the cert of posting. Should I send one to Gladstones requesting the same?
    I have pics of the parking signs but can't see how to load them here!
    My AoS has been acknowledged via the Money Claim.Gov. on 13/1/20.
    My defence so far is looking like this;
    1. A ticket was indeed purchased and displayed on 23/2/18. As a consequence no party was financially disadvantaged.
    2. Should I contest the additional charges that being £25 AND £60 as Abuse of Service?
    3. Should I say something about the car park being private land and the NPC is an invoice and not a fine?
    How should I strengthen my defence?
    Thanks.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 14th Jan 20, 6:11 PM
    • 26,776 Posts
    • 35,032 Thanks
    Redx
    • #9
    • 14th Jan 20, 6:11 PM
    • #9
    • 14th Jan 20, 6:11 PM
    no need for a SAR to gladrags, just the OPS one which you have already done

    use imgur and add a dead URL link, not a live one (you cannot load them onto MSE, its not a file hosting site)

    your defence should be looking more like the one by coupon mad in the basher52 thread

    your defence is based on the following

    NO LANDOWNER AUTHORITY (obviously its private land)
    POOR & INADEQUATE SIGNAGE
    Address the POC by rebutting it

    its ABUSE OF PROCESS , not SERVICE, covered in that basher52 thread by coupon mad

    you strengthen it by adapting the basher52 defence, thats how
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Staatsgrenze
    • By Staatsgrenze 14th Jan 20, 6:57 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Staatsgrenze
    Woops Process yes!

    Thanks I'll take another look at Basher52's defence now I have some focused points. The fact a ticket was purchased with the correct date on the 23rd -should I keep this as a fact but not allude to the incorrect month?
    I will say the signage is quite numerous around the car park. But yes the wording could be seen as unclear regarding 'contractual' agreements etc.
    Last edited by Staatsgrenze; 14-01-2020 at 7:13 PM. Reason: Add photo
    • Staatsgrenze
    • By Staatsgrenze 14th Jan 20, 7:24 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Staatsgrenze
    The parking notice referring to contractual agreement states; 'By parking or remaining on this site other than in accordance with the above you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms. You agree to pay a PCN in the sum of £80 to be paid within 28 days of issue this is reduced to £40 if aid within 14 days of issue.'
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 14th Jan 20, 7:51 PM
    • 13,326 Posts
    • 19,163 Thanks
    beamerguy
    The parking notice referring to contractual agreement states; 'By parking or remaining on this site other than in accordance with the above you the driver are agreeing to the following contractual terms. You agree to pay a PCN in the sum of £80 to be paid within 28 days of issue this is reduced to £40 if aid within 14 days of issue.'
    Originally posted by Staatsgrenze
    That's normal. You mean they are not saying they will add a fake £60 on top.

    The Gladstones scam model only works if the person does not understand the law.

    Gladstones scam the law and are now known as Rogue Traders

    With this forum, you can see that the inept Gladstones are just money scammers and by the way, completely incompetent

    READ UP ABOUT ABUSE OF PROCESS
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6014081

    This is just one you can refer to ....
    Gladstones told by Judge .... added £60 NOT LAWFUL
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76692888#post76692888
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 20th Jan 20, 6:13 PM
    • 13,326 Posts
    • 19,163 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Don't wish to be rude to you, but .... you are not getting this

    You say the signs are not fit but do you have pictures to show this and are they available for the judge to see. Often a judge will just decide on that

    You talk about ABUSE OF PROCESS but you don't say very much.
    His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC oversees the Dorset court system, he was not the judge(s) who ruled on abuse of process.
    You have been given your full response to ABUSE OF PROCESS by coupon-mad in post # 14 in the abuse of process thread
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6014081
    PLEASE USE IT

    So your case is via Gladstones.
    Gladstones has already lost by adding the fake £60
    GLADSTONES .... EXORBITANT CHARGES Case dismissed
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76533511#post76533511

    Gladstones told by Judge .... added £60 NOT LAWFUL
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76692888#post76692888

    Your job is to advise the judge what other judges are doing.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Staatsgrenze
    • By Staatsgrenze 21st Jan 20, 6:43 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Staatsgrenze
    Draft 2
    Yes I have pics as stated in my defence. I'll PDF the solicitors letters too as they're not verified/signed.
    DEFENCE

    1. The particulars of claim are vague stating a ‘breach of contract’ with no specific details as to what exactly constituted the breach. A Subject Access Request in letter form was sent to One Parking Solution dated the 13/01/20 and to date (24/01/20) no reply has been received by the defendant. The request asked for photographic evidence, the original PCN details and any other information the claimant had on the defendant.

    Practice Direction.
    Given the fact that ‘robo-claim’ solicitors and parking firms process tens thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant highlights that no solicitor is likely to have supervised the cut & paste claim. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed/verified the Particulars from Gladstones, which renders the statement of truth to have no authority which is in breach of Practice Direction 22.2
    (1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth –
    (a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but
    (b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set out in it.
    (2) The court may strike out a statement of case which is not verified by a statement of truth.

    Statement of Value
    The required fee of 50p for parking was indeed purchased in scratch- card form
    and displayed ‘fully and clearly on the front windscreen’ on 23/2/18 on vehicle
    registration number XXX XXX.
    The private landowner (and defendant’s employer) therefore cannot be seen to have
    incurred any losses. Neither can any proprietary interests by the car park operators
    have been affected in any manner.

    Abuse of Process. The Claimant’s representatives Gladstones Solicitors have inflated the value of the claim with additional fees that include £60 additional costs and £25 fees is not therefore a genuine estimate of loss and furthermore has been deemed unlawful and an abuse of process. A Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
    The defendant therefore disputes the claimant’s statement of value under rule 16.3
    of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998;
    6) When calculating how much the claimant expects to recover, the claimant must disregard any possibility
    (a) that the court may make an award of –
    (i) interest;
    (ii) costs;
    (b) that the court may make a finding of contributory negligence;
    (c) that the defendant may make a counterclaim or that the defence may include a set-off.

    If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the
    multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then
    due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of
    process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable
    pursuant to CPR 27.14.
    The defendant offers the judge to read further on this by referring to Claim
    Number; F0DP201T with District Judge Taylor Southampton Court, 10th June 2019.


    2. Signage. The signs are unlit so in the winter months /evenings they are not prominent. The signage is unremarkable and made up of small signs with wording consistently small as to deem the sign unreadable from even a short distance away (see attached photos).

    Statement of Truth:
    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
    Name:
    Signature
    Date
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jan 20, 8:14 PM
    • 80,674 Posts
    • 95,208 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You need to just read other OPS threads.

    Copy and adapt to suit, the one I wrote last month for basher52, this is far simpler than you are making it, due to not reading any OPS threads yet!

    You haven't put in any facts yet, and are missing half the wording we'd want to see at defence stage. This is the same thing I tell everyone on all OPS threads.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Staatsgrenze
    • By Staatsgrenze 22nd Jan 20, 6:05 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Staatsgrenze
    Updates
    So today I received the SAR from OPS and the date on the LBC is now dated 16/1/20 the original would have been sometime in Feb 2018! Do you consider this is an offer of a 2nd chance to settle before court?

    I found the link to basher52's defense under the thread Varley Park University -the link sent previously wasn't taking me to basher52 but to Le Panache.

    I have been reading basher52 defense and have used some of it in my revised defense. I really need some specific advice now as to language and what to edit etc..Thanks.
    DEFENCE
    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
    2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.
    3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXX XXX when it was parked at Westgate Fields Chichester .
    4. It is denied that:
    4.1. A contract was formed
    4.4. That in addition to the parking charge there was an agreement to pay additional and unspecified additional sums.

    The particulars of claim are vague stating a ‘breach of contract’ with no specific details as to what exactly constituted the breach.
    1. Statement of Value
    The defendant had indeed paid the fee of 50p for parking in scratch- card form
    and was displayed ‘fully and clearly on the front windscreen’ on 23/2/18 on vehicle
    registration number XXX XXX.
    The private landowner (and defendant’s employer) therefore cannot be seen to have
    incurred any losses. Neither can any proprietary interests by the car park operators
    have been affected in any manner.

    2. Practice Direction.
    Given the fact that ‘robo-claim’ solicitors and parking firms process tens thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant highlights that no solicitor is likely to have supervised the cut & paste claim. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed/verified the Particulars from Gladstones, which renders the statement of truth to have no authority which is in breach of Practice Direction 22.2
    (1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth –
    (a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but
    (b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set
    out in it.
    (2) The court may strike out a statement of case which is not verified by a statement of truth.

    3. Abuse of Process. The Claimant’s representatives Gladstones Solicitors have inflated the value of the claim with additional fees that include £60 additional costs and £25 fees is not therefore a genuine estimate of loss and furthermore has been deemed unlawful and an abuse of process.
    A Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim
    in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
    3.1. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - BRITANNIA PARKING -v- Mr C and another - less than two weeks later - the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.
    Cases summarily struck out in that circuit included BPA members using BW Legal's robo-claim model and IPC members using Gladstones' robo-claim model, and the Orders from that court were identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing during a prolonged period in 2019, with the Judge stating: ''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in the Beavis case. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
    3.2. In December 2019 in a different Court circuit, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court had clearly heard about the decisions affecting the IOW, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire circuit because he summarily struck out another parking ticket claim. The Judge mentioned the POFA 2012 and the Beavis case, and determined that ''it is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover.'' Further, in issuing his Order without a hearing, the Judge stated that he had ''considered S71(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for the fairness of the contract terms and determined that the provision of the additional charge breached examples 6, 10 and 14''.
    3.3. If this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited in the multiple Caernarfon, Southampton, IOW and Warwick County Court decisions, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.
    In summary, the claim discloses no cause of action and is without merit. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4
    The defendant therefore disputes the claimant’s statement of value under rule 16.3
    of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998;
    6) When calculating how much the claimant expects to recover, the claimant must disregard any possibility
    (a) that the court may make an award of –
    (i) interest;
    (ii) costs;
    (b) that the court may make a finding of contributory negligence;
    (c) that the defendant may make a counterclaim or that the defence may include a set-off.

    4. Signage. It is denied that the claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which can be read from a short distance of 5 foot as the wording is indistinct being set
    all the same size.
    The signs are also unlit in the winter months /evenings therefore they are not prominent.
    The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice 18.3 states; Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.
    Last edited by Staatsgrenze; Today at 6:42 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jan 20, 6:20 PM
    • 80,674 Posts
    • 95,208 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    So today I received the PoC from OPS and the date on the LBC is now dated 16/1/20 the original would have been sometime in Feb 2018! Do you consider this is an offer of a 2nd chance to settle before court?
    No. But BW Legal always send a letter or two around the time you put your defence in, one says some old misleading drivel that you are ''about to get a CCJ'' and one then suggests that they are proceeding and that you should ring them to talk about settling the 'account'.

    Obviously there is no account. It's all smoke & mirrors in these meritless claims.

    You will need to re-number that defence as you start 1, 2, 3, 4, then your sub-headings take it back to #1, which makes your paragraphs confusing and nigh on impossible for you to refer the Judge to, later in court!

    Is your local court Worthing? I have 'allowed' your username so that you can send pm's to me nearer the time of the hearing if you want help locally.

    I can't see that your defence follows the structure (start and finish) of basher52's one, and it misses out the point about no landowner authority.

    Remove this as it means nothing:
    2. Practice Direction.
    Given the fact that ‘robo-claim’ solicitors and parking firms process tens thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant highlights that no solicitor is likely to have supervised the cut & paste claim. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed/verified the Particulars from Gladstones, which renders the statement of truth to have no authority which is in breach of Practice Direction 22.2
    (1) If a party fails to verify his statement of case by a statement of truth –
    (a) the statement of case shall remain effective unless struck out; but
    (b) the party may not rely on the statement of case as evidence of any of the matters set
    out in it.
    (2) The court may strike out a statement of case which is not verified by a statement of truth.
    And it is the Claimant who has inflated the claim, not Gladstones (well we all know it is them operating in 'cartel-stylee' but...) your defence needs to say it's OPS who have inflated the Claim as the Judge won't pass comment on Gladstones, I shouldn't think:
    3. Abuse of Process. The Claimant’s representatives Gladstones Solicitors have inflated the value of the claim with additional fees that include £60 additional costs and £25 fees is not therefore a genuine estimate of loss and furthermore has been deemed unlawful and an abuse of process.
    Eek, remove those words in red! This is not about adding £25 and is certainly not to be argued on the basis of a sum not being a GPEOL. That argument went out the window in 2015 with the ParkingEye v Beavis case. It is as dead as a dodo in parking defences.

    Just use the words I wrote for basher52 and adapt that defence. No added stuff or changing the way it's written. I've encouraged lots of local OPS victims, on and off this forum, to just copy that defence and change the facts and figures only.

    It is easier than you are making it if you start again and bin your old version.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Staatsgrenze
    • By Staatsgrenze 22nd Jan 20, 6:59 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Staatsgrenze
    Thanks that's helpful.
    Ok so I'll adapt all 22 points of basher's then.
    Who is BW Legal as i've not seen them referred to in any of my letters?
    I'm in Portsmouth so would I have to use my local court ? Can I actually choose worthing?

    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jan 20, 7:04 PM
    • 80,674 Posts
    • 95,208 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Oh which solicitor are they using if not BW Legal? Gladstones? QDR? DCBL?

    They use all four.

    Do choose Worthing if you can get there for a morning hearing (10am onwards, typically)...you will have local support in person, if I am available.

    I am retired so I am normally able to go. Portsmouth is a bit of a push due to traffic, trouble is you might (rightly) say the same about Worthing!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Staatsgrenze
    • By Staatsgrenze 22nd Jan 20, 7:15 PM
    • 9 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Staatsgrenze
    It's Gladstones. So the fact Gladstones haven't verified their statement of truth -signed their letters means nothing in my defense then?
    So I am able to choose my court then that's good. I'll prob let the train take the strain to Worthing.
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

4,174Posts Today

8,343Users online

Martin's Twitter