ES Parking/Gladstone claimforn - PCN Spinningfields Manchester

[ericsbrother]

the whoever is up first should come back here and give out their claim ref number and the result so it can be used by the others.

[ginger1981]

Today I spoke to court again, and apparently the fee has still not been paid (Due 4th Jan), but they still said I needed to submit the witness statements, so I posted them this morning. would the judge just cancel the hearing, or will he rule in our favour?

[dx100uk]

would strike it out I suspect...

 

 

i'd get a wasted costs order in £18Ph lip costs at least?

[ericsbrother]

You should now write a letter asking the claim to be struck out for having no merits whatsoever and ask for a full costs order under CPR 27.14.2(g)

 

 

List your costs as Litigant in person

 

 

research costs of 5 hours @£19 per hour and whatever postage, photography travel costs and disbursements you have accrued.

If you dont detail it your wont get it

 

You can also send ES a bill for £250 for damages caused by their unlwful processing of your data, namely accessing the DVLA database and then using that data when they had no legal reason to do so. The case for this is VCS v Philip at Liverpool 7/12/16.

 

Dont let them off the hook,

send the letter even if you dont intend to go to court,

 

 

by giving them notice you have started a litigatino clock ticking that doesnt run out for 6 years so they will be the worried ones.

[ginger1981]

Thanks Ericsbrother. I put recovery of cost as final point on witness statement (post #168 above) do I need to do anything else or will it be taken from that letter?

[ericsbrother]

you need to write in again and submit a different claim as the one already on your WS is dead and gone now as it is discontinued so wont get read by anyone.

 

 

This time you say that their action was malicious as they knew that they had no prospect of ever winning so you want to claim LiP costs for your efforts

 

 

Probably still under CPR 271.14.2(g) but check have a look at other peoples cases in the legal section rather than here in motoring for the wording.

 

The demand for £250 goes straight to the parking co, not to court.

[NorthWestITConsultant]

I submitted a letter before claim to them asking for reimbursement within 14 days and got nothing back so have now submitted a MCOL.

[Roobear]

I'm working on my defence next week - will share it when I'm done (in time for Ginger's hearing).

 

Ginger - could you share the full details of your confirmation from the council that Spinningfields area is an adopted highway - this would help my defence a lot. Thanks.

 

PS - I just rang the court and Gladdys have paid the hearing fee for my case in early December !

[ericsbrother]

more fool them.

 

 

Dont forget to add your full cost recovery request as a CPR 27.14.2() or (g)

Add 5 hours Litigant in Person research costs@£19ph even if they decide to bottle out.

 

 

You can then go after them for the unlawful accessing of your details via the DVLA.

 

 

Complain to the ICO about the DVLA not making therse bandits show a reasonable cause to be given them

[ginger1981]

Well, there's never a dull moment in this case.

 

The saga continues as we received from Gladdys their witness statement pack, and yet I have checked again today, and they still haven't paid the fee.

 

I asked if this didn't mean it would automatically be struck out, and she said they'd have to raise it with the judge.

 

I'm attaching what they sent as their witness statement

(if you ask me its completely generic and they probably use it for every parking case).

 

they have included the contract with the land owners,

which we've been asking for since day 1, and a map of spinning fields with white and yellow dots, but no key to say what said dots are.

I'm assuming they're the signs which they have up.

 

They've also included 10 pictures of the car at varying degrees of close up from 10.51-10.53 on the day of the alleged parking incident.

 

I apologise for the dodgy pictures,

hope their readable,

my scanner isn't working so I had to take photos.

 

Heres the files that wouldn't attach on the last post.

 

Sorry., heres the PDF

WS.pdf

Edited January 26, 2017 by dx100uk
PDF reduced in sixe and properly redacted

[dx100uk]

management agent is not the land owner.

 

 

that named person must be thus in court

if not

whomever represents them can only simply hand over docs but not speak AFAIK.

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

get a letter in to court and say that there is no prospect of theis case being successful and their paperwork is insufficient to show a cause for action, quoting the other cases they have lost.

 

They are likely to just hope that you forget about it all and they then save some money.

 

 

Es are a bit hit and miss on whether they fancy their chances in these matters,

they would like to turn up and browbeat you into agreeing to pay the something

-anything at the court door to salvage their costs.

if you dont they are sunk

 

Dont forget to tell ES that you are going after them after this.

Edited January 26, 2017 by honeybee13
Paras.

[NorthWestITConsultant]

Hi Ginger,

 

Do you have the Attachment proving that Gartside Street is an adopted highway and also the recent signage? Just putting together my witness statement.

 

Thanks

[ginger1981]

Hi Ginger,

Do you have the Attachment proving that Gartside Street is an adopted highway and also the recent signage? Just putting together my witness statement.

 

Thanks

 

Hi NorthwestITConsultant,

 

 

Heres an image of the new sign and the email.

 

 

They have implied that its public,

but then when I emailed back to clarify,

just to be 100% they haven't replied.

 

 

I feel like they don't want to commit incase they get it in the neck from ES etc.

 

 

By the sounds of it the only way to know for sure is to go to their offices and view the plans,

but as I thought this would have been struck out by now I never went.

Gartside st sign and email.pdf

[ericsbrother]

you cannot afford to miss out anything.

 

 

Go there in person and view the plans if necessary.

 

 

If it is a public highway then you move that up the order to point 1 of your defence

[NorthWestITConsultant]

Hi NorthwestITConsultant, Heres an image of the new sign and the email. They have implied that its public, but then when I emailed back to clarify, just to be 100% they haven't replied. I feel like they don't want to commit incase they get it in the neck from ES etc. By the sounds of it the only way to know for sure is to go to their offices and view the plans, but as I thought this would have been struck out by now I never went.

 

Thanks Ginger,

 

Have you started proceedings against them yet for breach of the DPA?

 

Cheers

[Oddfellow]

Sorry, but being Devil's advocate here,

there is nothing in that short email in post 189 that implies anything whatsoever about Gartside St being maintained at the public expense.

 

 

What it says is that the records show the EXTENT of the land that is maintainable at public expense, and that you should view those records by appointment.

 

Do you have anything else in writing from the Council in this matter, because that WILL NOT stand up as a defence in Court.

[ginger1981]

Nothing else in writing Oddfellow, I did seek further clarification but they haven't replied.

[Oddfellow]

Then you need to follow EB's advice and get that appointment to view the records. We're all wishing you well!

[ericsbrother]

dont forget to add the travel costs to the town hall to your bill!

[Oddfellow]

More ES/Gladstone claims re: Spinningfields dismissed (and costs awarded) in court yesterday, as reported on the Prankster's blog

[ginger1981]

More ES/Gladstone claims re: Spinningfields dismissed (and costs awarded) in court yesterday, as reported on the Prankster's blog

 

Do you know how I would get those court references Oddfellow?

[dx100uk]

as reported on the Prankster's blog

parking prankster website

[ericsbrother]

blog for recent cases, website for library of importnat decisions and transcripts.

[ginger1981]

this morning was Dday, and we won.

 

 

It wasn't as straight forward as we expected,

and the judge seemed very strict,

 

 

I'll come back tonight and give more details and advise about what the judge said was and wasn't relevant in our witness statement,

 

 

but the key point was that the sign wasn't sufficient to form a contract,

as you would have to stop to consider the terms and conditions,

but in doing so you would have broken them.

 

 

He also pointed at Mr Hargreaves and said "Rip off" which made me smile.

No costs awarded though which annoyed me, but hey ho.