PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Claim Form Received from County Court Business Centre- for private parking charge notice
MajAmin
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 18:42
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,054



Hi,
First of all, thank you for the support you all provide through this site.

I have received a parking charge Notice from CPM (UK Car Park Management) for 'Unauthorised Parking' in a small car park. The bays are unmarked and the signs are barely readable attached high on the walls in small prints. I am the registered keeper but not the driver of the time.

The issue date was last year June 17 and was for £100 or reduced to £60 if payed in 14 days. It was sent to me in post with two pictures of my car in the letter. The reason was 'unauthorised parking'. Since then, I received another letter called 'Formal Demand' roughly after 40 days of the first letter where it says to pay £100.

Then I started receiving 3 DRP letters (2 in sept and 1 in Oct 17) asking to settle payment of £160. Following that, I received a letter from Gladstone Solicitors in Nov 17 asking me to settle payment of £160 and then another 'Letter before claim' in June 18.

Taking advice from other forums, I decided ignore them and I never contacted or reply to any correspondence thinking that they will stop.

Now (Sept 2018), I have received a claim form from county court Business Centre, Northampton asking to pay CPM £174.67 + £25 court fee + £50 legal rep fee total of £249.67.

I have kept all evidence of letters and pic of the car park including the sign they have up.

I need advise on what to do next. I have read different threads and you tube videos and all saying this is fake court. The court logos are blurred out and looks like the letter has been copied. Is this a actual court? The letter contains moneyclaimicon.gov password.

Please can you offer me advise om what to do next? I have 14 days to acknowledge of service then submit my defense. I can upload pics of letters and photos upon request.

Please speak to me in layman's term as I don't fully understand the process.

Questionnaire:
1 Date of the infringement[s] - 23/06/2017

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]
- 10/07/2017

3 Date received 13/07/2017

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?]
- not anywhere in the letter far as I can see

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - They took two pictures of my car and printed them in the letter

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal]
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up
- I did not respond at all

7 Who is the parking company? CPM

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London




Thank you in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 30)
Advertisement
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 18:42
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
MajAmin
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 21:27
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,054



Hi @nosferatu1001,
wow, thank you for the amazing feedback! I really appreciate you taking out your time to do this. I have taken all your comments and updated the WS. Here's my response to some of your questions:
3. sorry for all the repeat and contradiction.
7. I can't recall how many people were using it. I do a lot of favours to friends and family who regularly used the car. they are usually welcome to take the car and insurance to drive themselves.
32. I didn't copy a whole statement, rather any paragraph that directly relates to my case. Everything that's in there now, I have evidence of it. As English is not my first language, that can be my weak point.
I will post the updated WS in a sec.
Again thank you so much!

WS updated:


In the County Court at
Mayors and City of London Court

Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

Witness statement of Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX
1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit MA01, Exhibit MA02 and so on.
2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
3. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg - XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by a number of family and friends who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case. Without knowing who the driver was, I put the claimant to strict proof that any contract can exist between them and myself which they claim that it has been breached.
4. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed:
5. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on XX.06.2017 at XX:XX on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on XX.07.2017 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit MA01.
6. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letter issued on XX.08.2017. See Exhibit MA02
7. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly use threatening language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me. See Exhibit MA03
8. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on XX.11.2017 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt. This letter again uses threatening language and assumptions such as ‘It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges’. This letter repeatedly states that I need to contact the client (UK CPM) and their agent (Debt Recovery Plus Limited) to pay the £160. See Exhibit MA04
9. Seven months later I received the ‘letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors. See Exhibit MA05
10. I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by the claimant and their agents because I believed they were spam (this sort of scam had been exposed on Watchdog). Also, these were not offence or fine from an Authority like a Council or Police so there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail.
11. The Notice to Keeper was issued on the XX.07.2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. This is a clear indication that the claimant has not obliged with the following:
Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 12") - Schedule 4
12. It is also denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the Notice to Keeper was issued 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. The letter was received by the keeper on day 20 following the parking charge (3 days after it was issued). Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. This paragraph clearly instructs the claimant that where no notice to the driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used), the notice to keeper must be served no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. I have attached a copy of the POFA 12 schedule 4 as Exhibit MA06
13. Under the POFA 12 schedule 4, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. The claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the POFA 12 schedule 4.
Failure to comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice
14. As the claimant is a member of the IPC, they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The terms and condition are clearly stated in Part A of the IPC Code of Practice. The claimant did not comply with the Part C point 5 of the code of practice where it says:
‘Part C, 5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must;
(m) Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.’
I have attached a copy of the IPC Code of Practice as Exhibit MA07
The claimant also failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’
15. I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs). As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for. Despite asking for it on subject access request on XX.11.2018 (See Exhibit MA08), the claimant failed to provide copies of the supposed contract
16. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’.
17. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence.
18. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures.
19. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs and even impossible to see at the night as there is no light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit MA09
20. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit MA10
21. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road), that is affixed 12 foot high off the ground which can barely be noticeable or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit MA11
22. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but it was not possible to get within 10 feet of the sign due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier and at this distance the tiny, illegible whatever terms could not be read. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit MA12
23. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
24. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges", (See Exhibit MA13) which are anyway not my concern as I cannot be liable for more than the sum on the notice to keeper, even if the claimant had complied with POFA 2012 schedule 4, which is denied for the reasons set out above.
25. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1.
26. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as a registered keeper when the claimant has no such right and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
Statement of Truth
27. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signature
Date

This post has been edited by MajAmin: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 21:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 22:03
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (MajAmin @ Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 21:27) *
1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit MA01, Exhibit MA02 and so on.
2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
3. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg - XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by a number of family and friends who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm.


“I don’t remember who was driving but even if I did I don’t have to name them” isn’t the best approach ever.

QUOTE
It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case. Without knowing who the driver was, I put the claimant to strict proof that any contract can exist between them and myself which they claim that it has been breached.

4. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed:


QUOTE
5. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on XX.06.2017 at XX:XX on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on XX.07.2017 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit MA01.

6. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letter issued on XX.08.2017. See Exhibit MA02

7. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly use threatening language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me. See Exhibit MA03

8. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on XX.11.2017 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt. This letter again uses threatening language and assumptions such as ‘It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges’. This letter repeatedly states that I need to contact the client (UK CPM) and their agent (Debt Recovery Plus Limited) to pay the £160. See Exhibit MA04

9. Seven months later I received the ‘letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors. See Exhibit MA05


Is there any particular reason you want the court to see these? What do they add to your defence?

QUOTE
10. I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by the claimant and their agents because I believed they were spam (this sort of scam had been exposed on Watchdog). Also, these were not offence or fine from an Authority like a Council or Police so there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail.


You want the court to believe that solicitor’s letters are junk mail?

QUOTE
11. The Notice to Keeper was issued on the XX.07.2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. This is a clear indication that the claimant has not obliged with the following:
Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 12") - Schedule 4


12. It is also denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the Notice to Keeper was issued 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. The letter was received by the keeper on day 20 following the parking charge (3 days after it was issued). Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. This paragraph clearly instructs the claimant that where no notice to the driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used), the notice to keeper must be served no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. I have attached a copy of the POFA 12 schedule 4 as Exhibit MA06

13. Under the POFA 12 schedule 4, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. The claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the POFA 12 schedule 4.

Failure to comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice
14. As the claimant is a member of the IPC, they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The terms and condition are clearly stated in Part A of the IPC Code of Practice. The claimant did not comply with the Part C point 5 of the code of practice where it says:
‘Part C, 5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must;
(m) Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.’
I have attached a copy of the IPC Code of Practice as Exhibit MA07
The claimant also failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’


15. I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs). As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for. Despite asking for it on subject access request on XX.11.2018 (See Exhibit MA08), the claimant failed to provide copies of the supposed contract

16. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’.

17. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence.

18. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures.

19. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs and even impossible to see at the night as there is no light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit MA09

20. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit MA10

21. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road), that is affixed 12 foot high off the ground which can barely be noticeable or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit MA11

22. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but it was not possible to get within 10 feet of the sign due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier and at this distance the tiny, illegible whatever terms could not be read. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit MA12

23. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.

24. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges", (See Exhibit MA13) which are anyway not my concern as I cannot be liable for more than the sum on the notice to keeper, even if the claimant had complied with POFA 2012 schedule 4, which is denied for the reasons set out above.

25. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1.

26. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as a registered keeper when the claimant has no such right and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.
Statement of Truth
27. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Signature
Date


I really wish people would stop making arguments in witness statements and telling the court what to think.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajAmin
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 14:32
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,054



Hi All, thanks for all the feedback so far!
All evidence are saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xvuq6aqx26c8nxn/...WIIKGwajva?dl=0
I am looking to submit it tomorrow. any last minute check/feedback would be appreciated as ever.
I made some further cuts to the WS following feedback from @Southpaw82 and MSE:

In the County Court at
Mayors and City of London Court

Claim No. XXXXXXXX
Between
UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)
and
XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

Witness statement of Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX
1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit MA01, Exhibit MA02 and so on.
2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.
3. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.
4. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg - XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by several family and friends.
5. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on XX.06.2017 at XX:XX on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on XX.07.2017 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit MA01.
6. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letter issued on XX.08.2017. See Exhibit MA02
7. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly use threatening language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me. See Exhibit MA03a, MA03b, and MA03c
8. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on XX.11.2017 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt. This letter again uses threatening language and assumptions such as ‘It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges’. This letter repeatedly states that I need to contact the client (UK CPM) and their agent (Debt Recovery Plus Limited) to pay the £160. See Exhibit MA04
9. Seven months later I received the ‘letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors. See Exhibit MA05
10. I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by the claimant and their agents because I believed they were spam. Also, these were not offence or fine from an Authority like a Council or Police so there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail.
11. The Notice to Keeper was issued on the XX.07.2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. This is a clear indication that the claimant has not obliged with the following:
Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 12") - Schedule 4
12. It is denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the Notice to Keeper was issued 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. The letter was received by the keeper on day 20 following the parking charge (3 days after it was issued). Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. This paragraph clearly instructs the claimant that where no notice to the driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used), the notice to keeper must be served no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. I have attached a copy of the POFA 12 schedule 4 as Exhibit MA06
Failure to comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice
13. As the claimant is a member of the IPC, they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The terms and condition are clearly stated in Part A of the IPC Code of Practice. The claimant did not comply with the Part C point 5 of the code of practice where it says:
‘Part C, 5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must;
(m) Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.’
I have attached a copy of the IPC Code of Practice as Exhibit MA07
The claimant also failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’
14. I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs). As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for. Despite asking for it on subject access request on XX.11.2018 (See Exhibit MA08), the claimant failed to provide copies of the supposed contract
15. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’.
16. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence.
17. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures.
18. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs during and even worse to see at the night as there are no adequate light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit MA09
19. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit MA10
20. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road), that is affixed 12 foot high off the ground which can barely be noticeable or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit MA11
21. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but it was not possible to get within 10 feet of the sign due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier and at this distance the tiny, illegible whatever terms could not be read. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit MA12
22. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case.
23. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges". (See Exhibit MA13)
24. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1.
25. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow the full costs recovery order due to the claimant’s unreasonable claim as per CPR 27.14.2(g). My costs schedule will be submitted separately, depending upon whether a hearing takes place.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signature
Date
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajAmin
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 14:50
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,054



Also - just called the court, and they said that no court fee or application has been submitted but the claimant yet. the deadline was 5th March 4pm. and it said without the fee and application, it will be struck out. however,  unless they have paid it via post which might take a bit to update court database. I am will submit the WS either way. 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 15:44
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Absolute, don't miss your deadline
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajAmin
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 11:52
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,054



Hi guys,

here we go, Gladstones blinked first and dropped the claim! I received a letter 'Notice of Discontinuance' which has also been sent to the court too (it says). 

I guess they knew they didn't stand a chance and were bluffing all the way hoping that I would pay. I just want to say a massive thank you to you guys. You actually saved me £250. I would have paid by now if these forums wasn't here. I would have not have a clue how these PPC's are scamming people without using the proper law. I am so grateful to you guys! thank you and carry on this amazing work! your time and efforts are not going to waste. 

I am guessing no further action is required from me? I don't need to submit anything to court?

Should I do a counter claim for the time I wasted and the printing I done?

I am also thinking to complain to IPC and DVLA as they miss-used my data under POFA. 

Thank you again guys, 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ollyfrog
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 12:06
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 419
Joined: 22 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,530



Check with the court, but I would imagine they really have discontinued. PPCs have been known to say they are discontinuing and then not, but I would hope even Gladys is above that dirty trick. I think you may be able to claim costs because they were unreasonable in pulling out so late, see what advice the regulars offer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 13:15
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Worth a note to the court saying that discontinued this late is unreasonable - lost their failures. They've put you to this expense and time based on nothing

Worth a letter to the judge, asking for your reasonable costs to date at £19 per hour. Cite cpr27.14(2)(g) and list in bullets how badly they and their solicitor behaved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajAmin
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 12:36
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,054



Hi All, 

I wish I could personally know you to show you my appreciation of the support you guys gave me, thank you ever so much! 

I have submitted the WS to the court and to Gladdy's anyway just in case they are playing dirty tricks. I will wait for the court to notify me. 

Meanwhile, will be writing to the court, local MP, DVLA with complaints. will keep you informed until it's all over from the court.

thank you smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 11 Mar 2019 - 14:15
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Send the court a costs schedule.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MajAmin
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 18:16
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 21 May 2018
Member No.: 98,054



Hi All,
The court has confirmed that the hearing has been vacated so claim dropped!
I have submitted a cost schedule for unreasonable behaviour to the court.
thank you again for all the help and I wish you all the best!
carry on with the amazing work!
smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:15
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here