Gemini Parking PCN claimform - Olympic Park

[brassnecked]

Probably some more toilet paper from Gladdys, and if they carry on a snotty letter saying the matter is so simple the PPC will win, so they are asking for the matter to go forward "On the Papers".  which is where you insist it goes to court, they like to trick people into letting them get a default as they don't want their useless Particulars of Roboclaim to be tested in court if they can get away with on the papers.

[jonnymango]

Thanks Brassnecked, much appreciated.

[ericsbrother]

they like on the papers for 2 reasons,

they dont have to pay another solicitor to turn up in their place (but have already charged you for their attendance in the monies claimed) and they can submit outrageous assertions and irrelevant case law and claim it is precedent without you having the opportunity to rebut or challenge it.

 

It is common for them to drop the entire claim when they fail to pull the wool over your eyes and a hearing date is looming.

 

One day I will write a long list of all of the abuses of process and statements of truth that are anything but.

Perhaps it could be put in the stikky's as a reference file.

[jonnymango]

Sounds like you could write a book nevermind a long post!

 

Fingers crossed they drop it further down the line.

[dx100uk]

now spend your 'downtime' wisely.

get reading up on what might be to come next.

use the custom google search top right.

 

pcn claimform

[jonnymango]

Thanks DX , will do.

[jonnymango]

hello again wise ones.

 

So as expected I got the letter from Gladstones saying they are proceeding with the claim, request to deal with on the papers, matter relatively straightforward, costs to attend hearing disproportionate, elected not to mediate, client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals.

 

Subsequently a couple of days ago received notice of proposed allocation to small claims track requiring completion of the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire by May 15

 

So, do I reply to Gladstones first, refusing to agree to it going on the papers and requesting again the information previously requested?

 

Then fill out the Directions Questionnaire and send that back to the courts?

 

Then go back to EB's post and start preparing a statement, or do I wait to see if they decide they are actually going to take it to court before putting time in to that?

 

Thanks in advance as always!

GladsProceedWithClaim.pdf AllocToSmallClaimsTrack.pdf

[brassnecked]

Reply to the Court that you want an oral hearing and object to "On The papers" and indicate on the Court DQ that this is so. 

 

Gladdys are hoping for another unchallenged Default, so getting a hearing is key to undermining them.

[jonnymango]

Thanks, so just do the Directions Questionnaire and send it (with a covering letter?) back to the court? No contact with Gladstones?

[brassnecked]

send a copy of your completed DQ to Gladdys, snail mail free proof of posting.

[jonnymango]

Cheers.

 

Worth making the CPR 31.14 request again at the same time?

[brassnecked]

I wouldn't, as their non compliance with original request  is useful for your defence so why give them a chance now?  Others will doubtless be along soon to advise further.

[ericsbrother]

the lack of a response to the CPR 31.14 can be used against them so you dont give them another chance at screwing you over.

 

When you send in your N180 you can add a letter (include claim ref and that it is from you as defendant) rejecting an "on the papers" determination and stating that the plaintiff has failed to show authority to enter into contracts by way of their failure to produce such a contract under a CPR31.14 request and you ask the courts to use its powers to summarily dismiss the claim under CPR 3.4 and possibly as CPR 16.4 1(a) does not state why the claim is being made, ie whether it is for a breach of contract or for monies due as a contractual sum. 

 

Now you are unlikely to get the dismissal but what is likely is that Gladdys will be forced to present more evidence of their clients claim and as this will take time and cost them money they may well not pay the allocation fee and run away and hide.

 

Even if it gets beyond that it usually is the first thing the judge asks about before they let anyone speak about anything else and it is then common for the claim to be dismissed if the evidence wasn't properly included.

 

the form is generally self explanatory with you ticking yes for small claims track and putting in any dates you cnat make. It will then get sent to your local county court for allocation of a hearing date

[jonnymango]

Thanks EB, one thing re the CPR31.14... I recently re-read a letter (attached) they sent to me wanting proof of my residence at the new address I sent for future correspondence with the CPR request said if I didn't they would close the request - at the time I just read it as close the request to use the new address, not close the request for the CPR 31.14.

 

I didn't read it properly at the time, and didn't want to give them proof of my address, knowing that I still have the mail redirection in effect. However, they have in fact used the new address for the most recent correspondence anyway.

 

Have I slipped up, or have they?

ChangeofAddress.pdf

[ericsbrother]

so when they shot themselves in the foot it clearly missed anything vital

 

However, you provided them with an address for the service of documents that is within the EU so they cant say they arent obliged to use it but dont bother with proving anything.

 

trying to justify their failures to provide the infomation in this way will do them no good and if they do send stuff to your old address you can use that against them, for example you can claim that you didnt receive any documents sent there and as they had your correct adress that all such submissions should be struck out.

 

You can also go after them for unreasonable behaviour costs such as 5 hours  research time @£19.50 per hour

[jonnymango]

Cool, so they've just used that as an unnecessary obstruction to avoid having to provide me with the information requested, and I can still claim that they have refused the request as I don't need to prove any residency, I could in fact have just wanted the correspondence to come to my office instead of home address?

[ericsbrother]

no, they werent going to send it anyway. they just wanted to see if you were dumb enough to send it and then make assumptions about what else you might fall for.

[jonnymango]

Thanks Erics Brother,  could you cast your eye over this as the body of the cover letter to the Court Manager to accompany my DQ...  thanks

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Please find enclosed my completed N180 Directions Questionnaire as the defendant.

 

I note that the claimant has requested a Special Direction for the case to be dealt with on the papers. 

 

I do not consent to the claimants’ request for the matter to be dealt with on the papers and I believe the case should be dismissed under CPR3.4 on the basis that the claimant has failed to show any authority to enter in to contracts by way of their failure to produce such a contract, nor any evidence of planning consent for their signage under a CPR31.14 request.

 

Furthermore, the claim is made against the driver of the vehicle but the claimant has failed to provide any evidence that I was the driver, and are illegitimately pursuing me as the keeper.

 

Failing that I request that the matter is heard in person at XXXXX County Court,  as this is the nearest County Court to me.

 

[ericsbrother]

drop the bit about the driver liablity and you being keeper, nothing to do with the court case management powers.

[jonnymango]

Done, thanks very much EB

[jonnymango]

Hello again wise ones.

So it appears that they wish to see it through to court, although not to attend in person.

Court date is set for September 13

I just received their witness statement bundle as attached (redacted) part 1, and part 2 in the next post

 

Obviously then I need to now prepare my version so any vital points and refutations to their references would be much appreciated as always.

 

Based on their evidence am I stuffed after all this time?!

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

please read upload carefully and use one multipage pdf

also use pdf reducer sites if your attachment is too large [4.8Mb]

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

No you are not jiggered at all. The fact that they haven't complied with your CPR request should mean that they haven't got all the ducks in a row to show they have a legitimate case. In addition depending how they and the Court reads your response could man that either they drop the case before the hearing or the Court decides there is no case to answer.

So the quicker you repost their WS the better.

[ericsbrother]

abuse or failure to follow process means you can sk that the resultant claim is reduced by 25-50% shuld you suddenly feel like admitting you owe the money but the reality is nothing has changed. the signs arent any more valid now they have filed a bundle of paers than they were before

[jonnymango]

Thanks.

 

 

They say "My company relies on Parking Eye v Beavis (2015) in which it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign and accepted by the driver's actions as prescribed therein"

 

Is there a refutation to this case anywhere? Or do I not argue that  and just refer back to EB's earlier post and focus on the signs?

 

"What you are writing is roughly your side of events and referring to the evidence you can provide so that will include their signage, any evidence or lack of authority for them to offer anything, their paperwork if that doesn't create a liability, the POFA where the vital phrases have been missed by the parking co or the timescales missed.

 

then you pick holes in the wording and substance fo their claim, for example,

contractual sum or breach of contract

- they are different.

are they claiming from you as driver or keeper, cant assume they are one and the same.

 

What about the amount claimed?

it will invariably include unicorn food tax so if they are saying keeper ia liable they are limited to asking for the amount shown on the NTK and you should make this clear as it helps damage their assertion that driver and keeper liability are the same thing

 

As they havent responded to your CPR request for documents you can start off with that but it isnt a golden bullet, "

 

thanks

 

 

Thanks DX - I wondered about the blacked out bits. That's their doing not mine obviously.

 

 

 

claimants_ws_.pdf