don't need to see blank court forms.

when you get YOUR n180 from the COURT

you object to the paperhearing.

now what we do need to see is aLL of the claimant WS inc all the exhibits

on this form you tick NO to mediation.

the rest is self explanatory.

In the box for other info state that you want the matter to be dealt with by way of a hearing at your local county court.

Again, this can be done online via MCOL so if the blank form is from Gladstones then what are you thinking about given that we have said ignore their tricks.

Please find attached further documentation received from both the courts and the solicitors.

 

Advice/feedback/suggestions welcome.

Okay, so on the N180 form;

Question A1 "Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service?" .. I've stated no.

Question C1 "Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case?" .. I think this should be a yes, but not 100%? I also need to give a reason if I state no.

This form came BOTH from Gladstones, and the county court (I have two copies).

no to mediation

1 wit you

the rest is obv

copy to court

copy to gladdies minus email/phone

copy for your file

READ OTHER THREADS!!

Done and posted. Thank you.

small claims is yes, the sum is set for there.

Occasionally if it was a very "interesting" bit of law then multitrack may be appropriate but then costs become allowable.

If you were suing your employer for damages of say £1000 for personal injury but had £10k costs riding on it then you wouldnt go small claims procedure

Ahh, gotcha.

That's very insightful information, thanks.

I'll let you know when there's an update.

Really appreciate the help all

A small update. Communication attached.

so will go to your local court unless there are special reasons for it to be heard elsewhere.

You can ask for a hearing at a court close to where you work for example.

You may also be given instructions to provide evidence for case management.

This would apply

mostly to CMS

if the judge thinks they havent done enough to show a cause for action in their particulars of claim.

Gladdys and BWL are well known and with defended cases they are quite often told to produce a proper reasoned claim rather than the cut and paste job they use.

An overdue update attached.

I assume that "I do not agree that the claim should be dealt with on the papers alone".

Gladstones have said they do wish to progress based on papers alone.

correct you object

have you exchanged witness statements yet?

Deffo not papers alone Gladdys love papers alone they dont want their demic (Manchester synonym for garbage or broken) POC challenged.

what did you put in your skeleton defence?

You have supremacy of contract so thus cannot breach their conditions because you dont have a contract with them and they cant force one upon you.

This menas they have no cause for action against you.

Dud you do a CPR 31.14 and if so did they respond?

IF not you state that you beleive they have no locus standi as there is no contract between them and the landowner that allows them to make civil claims against ANYONE.

It might be worth adding these points to your not requesting a hearing, the last one you could say that you request the claim to be struck out because they have no locus standi.

Deffo do as EB says, your lease gives you supremacy over anything the Parking cowboys say, so they do not have anything to base their claim on.

correct you object

have you exchanged witness statements yet?

Witness statements? Nope. Didn't realise that was a thing in these cases.

what did you put in your skeleton defence?

You have supremacy of contract so thus cannot breach their conditions because you dont have a contract with them and they cant force one upon you.

 

This menas they have no cause for action against you.

 

Dud you do a CPR 31.14 and if so did they respond?

 

IF not you state that you beleive they have no locus standi as there is no contract between them and the landowner that allows them to make civil claims against ANYONE.

 

It might be worth adding these points to your not requesting a hearing, the last one you could say that you request the claim to be struck out because they have no locus standi.

Surely if they have no cause for action against me, I would win if the case was dealt with on papers alone? Historically, what happens if the case "goes to papers".

As for my defence:

- No way for me to obtain a permit.

- No clarity on who is being sued, owner or keeper.

- The parking charge notification is effectively a penalty to deter parking, which is unlawful.

- Signs unclear

- No response to CPR 31:14 request.

Deffo do as EB says, your lease gives you supremacy over anything the Parking cowboys say, so they do not have anything to base their claim on.

As above, if they have no basis for their claim, why can't I go to papers for a quicker resolution?

Others will go into this in more detail, but you don't want a papers hearing. Parking companies can say things on paper that aren't necessarily true and if you're not there to disprove it, the case might go their way.

HB

papers only hearing still requires witness statements to be exchanged.

they don't want theirs examined and pulled to pieces by you

as the judge wont question anything they state.

that's why you object.

can we have the exact verbatim text of your defence

this will be VERY important.

has there been a court hearing date set yet?

Papers only will give Gladdys the chance to lie, and lie some more, and gain a bent CCJ.

Plus, these conmen often bottle it and don't turn up to court.

Or else send some third party along who can't legally represent them.

Both ways lead to an easy win.

TBH defence misses the main points and that is a lack of contract to breach.

They will now try and lie to say that you have admitted there is a contract by not denying this point,

one of the reasons they will ask for a hearing on the papers.

The other main reasons are they will submit all of their evidence late so you dont get to see it,

they will tell lies and you wont get to challenge it and lastly it is cheaper for them.

They are terrible solicitors but this is their business so a hearing on the papers means you will lose, simple as that.

You need to get in the right mindset with this and start reading up on all of these things otherwise you wont know what to say on the day.

All the warnings about paper hearings are well recorded here and elsewhere but you havent bothered to look into it.

Get proactive, show us your lease for example,

measure and photograph everything,

position of signs relative to entrance etc

all small points but important if the judge decides a contract CAN exist when we dont think it does.

Recent communication attached.

Admittedly I haven't been particularly proactive during this case, but unfortunately my life is too busy to allocate much time to this issue. In all honesty, I wish I had just paid the original fine now - even though it's clearly unjust.

But, we're through the looking glass, so I'll have my day in court, and we'll see what happens.

they have gambled on you paying up to limit their costs (and thus make more of a profit as the claim includes the court fee they HAVENT paid yet) so when the 9th passes you get onto the court and ask that the claim be struck out under CPR 16.4 as they have failed to show cause for action and locus standi by way of a CPR 31.14 request for documents AND IN ANY CASE because they have failed ot pay the fee.

If you dont whack this letter in the courts tend to be lenient on late payers and have been known to allow the reinstatement of a case 6 months late so a letter will remind the court that you are interested and force them to either remind gladdys to get their chequebook out or abandon and then you can go for costs if you wish.

IT IS NOT A FINE PETER stop using that word.

There's a claimant reference showing in that PDF.

so witness statement time.

what date is the hearing?