PCM ANPR PCN Claimform - Overstay - Anchorwood Retail Park, Barnstaple, Devon ***Claim Dismissed + Costs***

[brassnecked]

Likely a local to the court solicitor, irf Gladdys are true to form the solicitor will be lucky to have any paperwork to guide them. If you are approached by their solicitor who offer's a chat and a we have a strong case yada yada comment quietly decline their invitation, they will want to glean points you are using in the defence.

[Lazy farmer]

Just received by email the attached 'skeleton argument' from Gladstones which has been sent to the court. I've made a few notes in red.

 

Can they do this? Seems like they are trying to determine the case before we go before the judge

Skeleton argument Gladstones.doc

[brassnecked]

They cannot assume a keeper is the driver under POFA, if they are suing a keeper only the original sum be it £60, or £100  can be claimed, and onl;y if POFA is satisfied and they know 100% that keeper is driver.  They cannot apply any Unicorn feed tax aka Debt collection fees to the claimed amount, that comes under Double Recovery.  Its Will trying it on again.

[FTMDave]

So the sole director of the IPC is - William Kenneth Hurley.  Formerly director of ...

 

... Gladstone's solicitors!  So no conflict of interest and  no connection between the two then

[lookinforinfo]

I am not surprised that Gladstones have sent a Skeleton argument rather than a Witness Statement since there is no need to aver that the truth is being told.

 Gladstones are massively out of order  by  misdirecting the "relevant period". The relevant  period has been in force since 2012 and  Gladstones cannot be ignorant of that part of the Act. It is intentionally used to misdirecr the Court and the keeper so that the keeper appears to be liable for the actions of the driver when they cannot be held liable.

 

If we look at the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  Schedule 4 S9 [4][5]  it states quite clearly

(4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

 

Even the most incompetent solicitor could not misconstrue that as being anything other than the PCN has to be delivered WITHIN 14 days , NOT posted on the 14th day. This is a disgraceful attempt by Gladstones to thwart the intentions of the Act when they do know from many other cases they have handled what the relevant period actually means.

It is quite obvious that S9[5] only mentions the beginning of the relevant period not the end since that has already been explained in S9[4] where it states that the Notice is to be delivered within 14 days.

 

Your first move is to complain to the Court what I have just explained above. You can use my words .You could also  ask the Court to quash your PCN in the light of their attempt to circumnavigate the Act  in order to blatantly wrongly transfer the charge to you .

 

The second thing is to write a complaint to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority about them trying to misdirect the Court-almost perjuring themselves  in order to involvee you in something you are not involved in.

Your next move

[Nicky Boy]

Are skeleton arguments common in these small claims? Seems odd...

[dx100uk]

its a way for the claimant or the defendant to try and gloss over or distract from important issues that might lose them a case. here judge concentrate on this shiny object, bit like trump does . look over here not over there .

 

dx

 

[Lazy farmer]

I won, case dismissed!

I've just sat through 15 minutes of the judge attacking Gladys for wasting the courts time putting forward a 'dogs dinner' of a claim that was unwinnable.

 

Hardly had to say a word, first he called them out for being out of time for POFA then failure to follow their own code of conduct.

 

There was a half hearted attempt to suggest a presumption that the keeper was also the driver that was also thrown out.

 

The poor legal who got paid to represent them apologised & basically said he'd told them this but was told to get on with it!

 

Was then awarded costs, happy days.

 

Thanks as ever for all your help.

 

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

[FTMDave]

Is that 2-0 to you now in court victories against these money-grabbing companies?

[honeybee13]

Brilliant, well done! They'd be silly to tangle with you again. Your 15 minutes sound quite entertaining. 

 

HB

[Nicky Boy]

I LOVE this forum!

[Lazy farmer]

3 - nil

 

Twice in court & one ticket cancelled by issuer.

 

Mind you, with my kids probably won't be the last.

[brassnecked]

Brilliant well done you. Bet the Judges dissection of Gladdy's pitiful attempt was good.

[lookinforinfo]

That is great news. And getting your costs. Happy days. The only way they could have won was if you didn't turn up but there you were in the front row eating your popcorn waiting to get your costs.

Your kids will be expecting a share of the costs if this keeps up. Might be more profitable than farming.

Edited January 25, 2023 by lookinforinfo