Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

PPM/Gladstones claimform - 2*PCN Hounslow Travelodge TW3 1JG ** CASE DISMISSED **


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2470 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

If you have a court date

You must have completed an n180 and received your own directions questionnaire where it required you to file a witness statement

 

Yes i completed and returned the n180 form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what about the dq and ws?

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

we need to see their WS

covert it to a multipage PDF AFTER redacting each page.

follow the upload

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for responding so quickly.

 

 

I've just gone through my papers.

I've returned the dq but not the ws.

 

 

I was under the impression that as i wasn't using any other witnesses that this would be ok.

 

 

Having just re-read the letter from the court with the Notice to Allocation it looks like i should have filed this last week.

The court date is the 13th.

I have very little understanding off all the court procedures and i apologize to you for that,

but does that mean that i wont be able to refer to past cases.

 

Many thanks in anticipation for your help

Pip

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having little understanding is a poor excuse,

you came her in Jan,

you could have come back ad asked for advice any time since then,

Also it doesnt affect your ability to read the paperwork sent from the court properly.

 

You had a cast iron defence but now you may well have thrown away any chance of presenting it.

 

You need to get all of the details regarding your defence written up and grab copies of images of the sigange and also copies of all of the cases written about on the parking pranksters blogspot that mention keeper liability and the rubbish claims of Ellitot v Loake and the CPS v AJH Films to show that the assumption of any driver being your servant is nonsense.

 

Get a copy of everything sent to the court and also to Gladstones.

they will object but as you had your skeleton you can still talk about these matters but if the judge is particularly nasty they may well say that you filed to present them so less weighting will be given to them.

 

 

That wont change the law but your arguments become less compelling as some judges are sticklers for procedure and some give a lot of leeway to both sides in small claims as it is generally less formal.

 

I have met both sorts and can say that the relaxed ones outnumber the hard nosed ones but you cant bank on it.

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavis not necessarily relevant as they are misquoting,

 

They are also wrong about the CPR, at the time there had been no allocation of track so it should have been complied to. The WS fails to produce a copy of the contract assigning the necessary rights from the landlord and without such an assignment PPM have no locus standi.

 

If you havent sent in your WS yet add these points to it as rebuttal of their evidence. You have copies of the signage at the site?

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just an update on this.

 

Went to court last Thursday and the judge dismissed the case.

Said that she was sick of telling Gladstones the same things.

 

 

Their witness statement was not good enough.

Proof of signage was no good.

The fact they they had not made it clear whether it was the driver or the keeper they were claiming from.

 

Also said they had no right to claim for additional monies other than the £100 per ticket that they had originally specified.

 

 

She insinuated that their business model seemed to to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court.

 

My witness statement was never even mentioned and i never had to open my mouth in court other than to say "thank you maam".

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

let the parking prankster know the details of your claim number etc via his web page (not blog) so othwers may use this as the bit about Gladdys been told they are useless is quite important.

Just an update on this.

 

Went to court last Thursday and the judge dismissed the case.

Said that she was sick of telling Gladstones the same things.

 

 

Their witness statement was not good enough.

Proof of signage was no good.

The fact they they had not made it clear whether it was the driver or the keeper they were claiming from.

 

Also said they had no right to claim for additional monies other than the £100 per ticket that they had originally specified.

 

 

She insinuated that their business model seemed to to scare people into paying up before the case went to court and claiming additional money that they knew they would not have any right to in a court.

 

My witness statement was never even mentioned and i never had to open my mouth in court other than to say "thank you maam".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...