Mr Baywatch PCN Reel cinema in York- now claimform received

[ericsbrother]

simple letter to Gladstones saying that

"no monies are owed because their client was and is not in a position to offer a contract at that site and their presence there is a breach of the planning permission granted to Reel cinemas and as such one cannot enter into a criminal compact with them.

 

 

Any legal action by your client is doomed to fail as they well know so a full costs recovery order will be sought should they continue their malicious actions".

[dx100uk]

If you go read other like threads here

You'll see that's a std letter and letter before claim does not mean a court claim

...that's a letter before action.

 

A claim of what..you might owe them

You don't

 

Dx

[silverfox1961]

Let us get this clear. It is in Gladstones benefit that they send these letters as they and the IPC are one and the same. The directors of the IPC are the same as Gladstones. If this isn't a conflict of interest then what is? I bet they don't even see the grounds for a claim from MB.

 

Any letter to Gladstones that you may choose to send must make clear that any action they take on behalf of their buddies will be vigorously defended. The £50 they have added cannot be claimed for so even if they did go to court the most they would get is around £200.

 

This is purely a numbers game for them. IF it did go to court, it would cost them around £350-500 which the majority of it cannot be reclaimed from you.

PNC £100

Court claim £25-35

Solicitor cost £50

That is all. This is due to it being in the small claims court where costs are fixed and aimed squarely at the public.

 

So, poorly defended claim. £175+

Well defended claim £0 plus allowable costs to you.

 

The letter above does not mean court action WILL follow, only that it MAY follow

[female_haggis]

Thank you everyone I'm starting to feel a bit better

[female_haggis]

Hi I have a county court claim but its a photo copy, I thought it would be an original

 

please can you help

[dx100uk]

who did it come from

should be from the court northants

 

 

is there a password at the end of the information text box

[female_haggis]

Yes, there is a password on the letter. It has been censored on the copy I posted

[dx100uk]

ok well you've got all you need there to acknowledge the claim {AOS box]

on the mcol website listed.

 

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked

follow it through the next few screen then confirm.

 

you don't enter a defence at this stage.

 

did that come from the court or mr Baywatch or their sols?

 

dx

[female_haggis]

Based on the address on the form, as well as the return address which was on the envelope, it would appear to be from the county court

[dx100uk]

that's ok then.

 

 

dx

[female_haggis]

I have submitted the acknowledgement of claim on the MCOL website. What should be done now?

[silverfox1961]

Well it seems that Gladstones have convince MB to take action. I have to say this is unexpected based on previous form for this company. MB took only 1 case to court last year, it was unlikely they would have bothered unless Gladstones have said something to assure them. No win No fee perhaps because although I am no lawyer, I wouldn't touch this with the world's longest bargepole.

 

Can you go to the cinema and take some close up pictures of the signs. If not, no worries. In the meantime, I will try and find some bits to assist.

[silverfox1961]

Non compliant signage

No facility to pay more whilst in the cinema.

different signage.One says £100. Other says £60

Main sign displays £100 but it is not as prominent as other terms. This is a core term and as such should have been bigger.

I would also state that there is no contract in place which would force MB to bring it to court.

 

The case they quoted will have no bearing on this case as that was for a free car park and if they try to rely on the Beavis case, you can argue away their points.

 

Ericsbrother has a good grasp of what to say and can use some of what I have raised as parts of your defence.

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.954852,-1.0936027,3a,75y,81.9h,66.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2lujGpKyUDm7P9_S4ER50g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

[female_haggis]

these are the pictures from the car park....according to the main sign it has 2 companies who run the car park...is this normal

pix.pdf

Edited August 7, 2016 by dx100uk
pix converted to PDF - dx

[silverfox1961]

The first picture you have posted I assume is the one by the entrance to the car park and as such, that would be the one I would read. It is non compliant as the parking charge is hidden away in the small print at the bottom of the sign. As this is a core term, this MUST be prominent irrespective of what the other signs say.

 

These signs are newer than the ones from Google earth.

 

I would suggest that Minster Baywatch have no standing to bring any claim in their own name as the site is managed by Branby Wilson who are likely agents for the landowner. They have subcontracted out the ticketing to MB and as such only BW can bring the claim. (I fully expect to be corrected if I am wrong)

 

By entering the car park, you are entering into a contract but with whom? As MB have no interest in the land then I suspect this cannot be contractual, merely trespass where it Must be the Landowner who brings a claim.

 

It is quiet at weekends but I hope the more knowledgeable ones will be here later/tomorrow

[zydeco]

It would appear that BW and MB are run by the same person,

https://companycheck.co.uk/director/908852965/MR-CHRISTOPHER-IAN-WILSON/companies

but they are registered at companies house as separate entities.

It would be interesting to see what contract BW has with the landowner.

[dx100uk]

bw legal are nowt to do with him though

 

 

dx

[female_haggis]

Thanks, thats very interesting, I thought is was weird it had 2 companies on the sign....but and yes it would be nice to know who has the right to fine me.....it should be Reel

Edited August 7, 2016 by female_haggis

[female_haggis]

simple letter to Gladstones saying that

"no monies are owed because their client was and is not in a position to offer a contract at that site and their presence there is a breach of the planning permission granted to Reel cinemas and as such one cannot enter into a criminal compact with them.

 

Any legal action by your client is doomed to fail as they well know so a full costs recovery order will be sought should they continue their malicious actions".

 

 

I sent them this.....

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I have been advised to write to you with the following,regarding your client Minster Baywatch

 

no monies are owed because your client was and is not in a position to offer a contract at that site and their presence there is a breach of the planning permission granted to Reel cinemas and as such one cannot enter into a criminal compact with them.

 

Any legal action by your client is doomed to fail as they well know so a full costs recovery order will be sought should they continue their malicious actions

 

this car park belongs to the Reel cinema not Minster Baywatch, any run overs in the car park that are caused by the cinema should be reviewed by the cinema to see if the car owner was in fact in their cinema at the time and if the film did in fact run over

 

and they responded with this......

 

Miss Broomhead

 

I write further to your email.

 

As a claim has been issued we will continue with the court process. You may wish to seek legal advice.

 

Regards

Ellie

 

 

 

I'm now at a lose as what to do

[dx100uk]

could be bluff and blaster..well not could...is.

 

 

dx

[dx100uk]

so you need to start formulating a defence

should be easy.

 

 

have you sent gladdy a CPR 31:14 since you got the claimform?

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

You added irrelevant bits to a simple response so they dont believe that you understand what you have claimed.

 

However, if they have issued a claim then they will be hard pushed to deny that it is not malicious when they know that they dont have grounds to make one.

 

 

you now send a letter demanding sight of the contract between Minster baywatch and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make claims in their own name as discovery under CPR 31.14 as they have indicated they are making a claim.

 

You already know that there is no planning permission to allow parking

-it is a criminal offence as a breach of planning consent to Reel so they cant win anyway.

 

If they havent issued a claim then a complaint to the SRA abiout their abuse of position will be worth doing

[female_haggis]

Hello,

 

I have taken your advice, and written a CPR 31.14 letter using a template I found online. Can someone advise on any changes which could be made to improve the letter before I send it off.

 

Many thanks

CPR_31.14_Letter.PDF

[dx100uk]

cpr is a request, they don't have to respond

 

pers i'd remove counterclaim

the part about requiring sight of said documents before you file your defence.

it paints the picture that you will not or cant file until they comply

not correct.

 

likewise i'd remove the whole of the sentence below

none of it is needed

 

invitation to an extension...

you don't want to give them more time to magic up cut and paste fake documents.

they issued the claim,

they should already have these

not use the court system as a speculative invoice moneymaking exercise

simply hoping for a non contested default rubber stamped judgement.

 

timelimit...you cant dictate anything in CPR they are a request.

 

photocopying...not your problem, part of their costs.

 

don't forget to add and request sight of planning permission for their signs

[ericsbrother]

OK, now when do you have to submit a defence?

 

 

If it is after the deadline for returning the discovery documents then you can use that to your advantage,

if it is before then you will have to send off a letter of complaint to the court

and ask for the claim to be struck out as having shown no cause for action. (more later)