ES/Gladstones Claimform - PCN Kent Street Lpool - ***Claim Discontinued***

[dx100uk]

we understand everyone has issues

but you've been here since august

and the claimform wasn't advised here until a week later

 

your saving grace is your defence doesn't need to be filed till/by 15th jan by 4pm

and you can do that by MCOL online too.

 

you've got the CPR running now so that's the main issue

 

just don't miss your defence filing date whatever you do

and comeback here immediately IF you get any return to the CPR

as that will poss change the two line defence you need to file.

 

that can be found in the majority of the Gladstone claimform threads here.

 

just use our search cag box of the top red toolbar

 

claimform gladstones

 

or claimform vcs excel

 

the two lines defence is the same for any private parking claimform.

 

don't file early.

 

it might also pay you to

 

asking for a strike out on the basis it is insufficient to show why they are after you

 

this letter you will see around and should be sent to the court ASAP

 

i'm sure EB will pop in post 47 which is relevant to all the above

 

he did reply in post

[ericsbrother]

85% of people dont bother to defend a claim,

we hope that you would rather make that statistic a lower figure.

If so then pull your finger out.

 

As you havent posted up your skeleton defence we cant comment on it.

 

templates?

they do not replace thinking.

 

READ the POFA and then read a load of threads about the same sort of issues and them you will understand why we say dont identify the driver or such things.

 

If the claimant has created a keeper liability then that point doesnt matter

but this lot dont and the wording of their POC kills them by not doing so.

 

We can write all we like and come up with brilliant strategies

but they are worth nothing if you dont use them and are able to explain why they are relevant in court.

 

Now, as for their claim,

it relies on the driver and keeper being the same because they have no cause for action against the keeper and they know it.

 

As said, they are hoping to pull the wool over the judge's eye (who wont have just read the POFA before hearing this)

 

it is your job to make the court aware there is a massive difference between the 2 and they cant lump them together

[hayho1]

Thank you again.

 

CPR 31:14 posted on 02.01.2018 to be delivered on 03.01.2018 with PROOF OF POSTAGE.

I will notify immediately if CPR is returned.

 

15th January 4pm is in diary and will not be missed.

 

My 2 line defence (to be submitted on 15th before 4pm) will be:

No cause for action against the defendant as no contract offered and no keeper liability created.

 

Understandably, this may change dependent upon response to CPR.

 

As advised, may ask for strike out. But I will await further correspondence and advice.

[hayho1]

Hi Just a minor issue,

 

As I was reviewing my evidence today, i noticed that the PCN has the BPA logo at the bottom and states that the private parking company is a member. However, this does not appear on any other sign throughout the premises according to my pictures.

 

I also looked on the BPA members list and could not locate ES Parking Enforcement Limited.

 

Is this something that I should take further e.g. check with BPA or even notify them of bad practices taking place under their nose? I was previously advised not to bother with IPC (also a member) but no mention of BPA?

 

To date, I have complained to DVLA, Trading Standards and my local MP re: unlawful clamping, breach of DPA, and failure to answer reasonable requests.

[dx100uk]

so you were unlawfully clamped too?

 

dx

[hayho1]

Sorry that probably was confusing as I have been looking back over mine and other threads today.

I was summing up my actions to date.

 

Re: unlawful clamping - Thankfully, I was not clamped.

 

In the earlier threads I was advised to notify the DVLA and TS that ES Parking Enforcement Limited are threatening to clamp (which was captured in my pictures of the premises).

[dx100uk]

you mean earlier posts here in this thread

yes I can see that.

 

ok whatever else you find that's for later in your witness statement IF the case ever gets that far

[doubtful unless ES blindly allow gladdy's to guide them even more up the stupidity path than they do to the other members of the Gladstones old boys we fleece our members club=IPC]

gladstones wont care they still get paid by ES eitherway....

 

for now you keep to post 51

[hayho1]

okay thanks dx, keeping paper trails and notes of all new finds

[ericsbrother]

they are members of the IPC and that is why gladstones are involved.

As you well know because you have done your reading oon all of this Gladstones and the IPC are owned by the same 2 people so they like to act tough to make their members believe they are worth the membership money.

 

Many parking co's also belong to the BPA when they are IPC members because the BPA offers training courses etc, which Will and Jogn are woefuly inadequately equipped to do.

 

The signage should have the right sort of logos to indicate the level of membership and hence who does the appeals.

i will have another look at your images and add something to this

 

Hi Just a minor issue,

 

As I was reviewing my evidence today, i noticed that the PCN has the BPA logo at the bottom and states that the private parking company is a member. However, this does not appear on any other sign throughout the premises according to my pictures.

 

I also looked on the BPA members list and could not locate ES Parking Enforcement Limited.

 

Is this something that I should take further e.g. check with BPA or even notify them of bad practices taking place under their nose? I was previously advised not to bother with IPC (also a member) but no mention of BPA?

 

To date, I have complained to DVLA, Trading Standards and my local MP re: unlawful clamping, breach of DPA, and failure to answer reasonable requests.

 

show us the ticket with the BPA logo

as already said the signage says all sorts of things but the ones with the biggest word dont have any mention of a condition that says you must park within the confines of the paintwork on the floor.

 

As no such condition exists they cant ask for money for breaching it.

So, for your skeleton defence I wouild add this to the line you ahve already written.

 

" there was no such condition in the contract offered by the signage that could lead to the alleged breach so no possible cause for action against the defendant or anyone else"

[hayho1]

Thank you for your feedback and advice EB. I will add the addition to my defence as advised.

 

Please find attached the document with the BPA logo - this was the very first letter I received (PCN).

 

Thanks for advice. Please find new version.

PCN.pdf

[hayho1]

Hi,

 

So after my 3rd letter to the DVLA notifying them of the PC unlawfully suggesting that they will clamp vehicles, and also reiterating my complaint re: breach of the DPA and failure to answer my request for info... (attached)

 

I have now received a response from the DVLA (attached).

 

My letter was sent to the complaints dept but as you can see, I received a response from the Data sharing Dept. Moreover, you will see that the concern re: clamping was not addressed; however, I do recognise that this may be as this was raised with the complaints team which may not be the appropriate dept.

 

I was wondering if you would advise that I take this complaint further, and whether you would advise a particular response?

 

Thanks

car park letter to DVLA re clamping.pdf

DVLA response.pdf

[ericsbrother]

well,

they have failed to answer your question but the main problem is you didnt really make it clear that the complaint should have been that ES WERE breaching their KADOE contract and what are the DVLA going to do about that.

 

As this is a side issue to your defence (we really wanted the date they applied for your details so another knife could be stuck in them)

I would leave this for the moment and concentrate on the court claim

 

unless you can send a further complaint and make it very clear what the complaint point is you are unlikey to get anything useful in the time frame.

 

Should you want another bash at writing to the DVLA then show us what you intend to say before posting it to save a lot of frustration.

[hayho1]

Thanks for advice EB. I agree that I will leave this to another time and focus on my court claim for now. I will send a further, clearer complaint in due course, posting a draft here beforehand for review.

 

My Defence is to be filed no later than 4 pm on Monday, therefore I wanted to have my defence ready for then.

 

You already approved and added to my 2-line defence.

 

DX100 also advised my defence would change if there is no response to the CPR 31:14 request (WHICH THERE HASN'T TO DATE).

 

So here is what I intend to write (going from other posts)...

 

- No cause for action against the defendant as no contract offered and no keeper liability created.

 

- There was no such condition in the contract offered by the signage that could lead to the alleged breach so no possible cause for action against the defendant or anyone else.

 

- ES Parking have failed to show cause for action by way of sight of

i) planning permission for their signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007;

ii) a contract between themselves and the landowner assigning the right to enter into contracts and make civil claims in

their own name; and,

iii) copies of the notice to driver, notice to keeper and any other correspondence from ES Parking Enforcement Limited & Gladstones Solicitors Limited to the defendant that they intend to rely upon in court, by way of a CPR 31.14 request.

[ericsbrother]

as your defence has been submitted you can now either wait to hear from the court,

who will send you an allocation questionnaire

( what dates are you on holiday, do you accept mediation etc)

 

or you can go after them by writing a letter to the court saying that the particulars of claim are so rubbish they should be struck out as they have failed to show why they are suing you and in what capacity ( no keeper liability dont forget)

you require "strict proof" of who was driving at the time if they are claiming from the driver,

 

that the claim has amounts added that are unlawful under POFA so if they want to claim keeper liability then the sum claimed is wrong. etc.

 

also add that they have failed to show locus standi by failing to respond to your request for proof of the assignment of the right to enter into contracts and make civil claims by way of a CPR 31.14 request for documents.

 

Generally you dont get a strike out

but they will be told to resubmit the POC and show a cause for action against you.

They often give up at this point.

 

If you want to write this letter

I can tidy up what I have indicated above

and you can the send it to court

( or take it to your local CC if nearby)

[hayho1]

Thank you for advice EB.

 

Now the defence has been submitted, I choose to write a letter to the court asking for a strike out. I am in the process of this

- hope to post this up tomorrow for review.

 

In the meantime, I was shocked to receive an email from gladstones solicitors yesterday whereas I HAVE NOT at any point given this out.

 

I submitted my defence on 14.01 and received the email yesterday.

I wonder do I need to take any action as this information has been given to them by someone without my consent?

 

For your reference, this was the email I received pasted below:

 

Dear xx

 

Es Parking Enforcement Limited

 

-v-

xx

 

We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim.

 

Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request.

You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing

 

This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate.

 

You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.

 

Yours sincerely

 

xx

 

Litigation Assistant

[dx100uk]

bounce it back block their email.

std stuff designed to unsettle and intimidate ..

[brassnecked]

They always seem to want to go "On the Papers" so that their busted-ass claim goes unchallenged in court. They know they will get ripped by the judge. Make sure you block their email and don't go on the papers.

[ericsbrother]

the court online process give them your email addy.

Supposed to make things easier to come to a resolution but the reality is that dodgy lawyers will just abuse the system if you let them.

 

They will file docs by email at midnight on the day before a hearing when they are supposed to get them to you a fortnight before and try and claim you are happy about this.

 

Always challenge anything they do that is not part of the proper procedure and challenge it in writing to the court.

Most of it will get ignored because the judge isnt impressed with them

but they wont have made their case anyway so it was all a waste fo effort for them.

 

Eventually some judges get so fed up they throw the claim out on proceduarl grounds

but generally you see Case Management Ordrs give to them to redo their paperwork and hand it over on time or else.

Edited January 22, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[brassnecked]

It's about time these Parking Cowboys and their solicitors are designated as "Vexatious Litigants" and barred from courts.

[ericsbrother]

the sols never get barred because they are only doing exactly what their clients tell them to do.

 

We all suspect that they use a form of no win no fee to generate these claims

but unless you can prove gladdys are committing Champerty and Maintenance they will continue to do so.

 

As for being barred for vex, they have to sue the same person and lose 6 times before the courts will consider such an order.

 

It is a rare thing.

[hayho1]

Hi All,

 

Many thanks for advice and FB.

 

EB - I did wonder if the email had been obtained from the online process as the email arrived not soon after submitting my defence.

 

As advised I have forwarded the email back to the sols and blocked their email address.

 

I am sorry for the delay in getting my strike out letter complete and uploaded. There has been a bereavement in the family so this has pushed me back. I am to have this complete and uploaded tomorrow.

 

Please find attached my strike out letter to the courts - feedback is much appreciated

 

I realise that the O is missing from POFA in last sentence - this has been amended on original doc

strike out letter to court anonymised.pdf

[ericsbrother]

Now you wait for the court to send you an allocation questionnaire. [N180]

 

This is whether you want the hearing at a court other than your local one and what dates arent you available.

 

Gladdys will try it on with the paper hearing bit again

 

if you get a letter from them do not respond,

 

if you get a letter from the court you must respnd saying you want an oral hearing

[hayho1]

Thank you for your comments. Strike out letter has been sent and above advice will be followed.

 

I am in the process of completing Directions questionnaire which needs to be completed/filed by 05.02.

 

The form asks about whether I will be using written evidence from an expert. This is something I would like to pursue; however, I haven't yet identified one.

 

If I don't provide details for an expert witness in the document I return, does this mean I wont be granted permission thereafter?

[dx100uk]

you mean the N180

1 wit you

dx

[ericsbrother]

AS yu dont have an expert witness you can only leave this blank. There are no such things in a case like this, it is about contracts, nothing more.