PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Possible court claim Gladstones private fine
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Mon, 15 May 2017 - 15:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Hello to everyone,

So near the back end of last year I had received a couple of PCNs from UK Car Park Management Ltd for 'unauthorised parking'. As standard procedure I went through SchoolRunMums advice and sent initial appeals, maybe in error both appeals in one envelope as RK from newbies sticky to this bunch using IPC template and obtaining free proof of postage and ignored any following Debt Recovery Plus letters. I have now received a letter from Gladstones wanting payment within 14 days of the letter.

What's my best course of action now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Mon, 15 May 2017 - 15:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 15:58
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,706
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Have you had a look? It's mentioned here and on MSE in a fair few places.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 16:06
Post #62


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



QUOTE (WhiteTsBlackJeans @ Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 16:51) *
I'm having issues logging into MCOL, can anyone confirm the e-mail address I can send claim through to on?


I presume you mean the email address for the defence document.

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

In the Subject line, put Claim No. XXXXXXXX - Defence


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 16:21
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Thanks @bargepole. I had found a generic email ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk but wasn't sure if that would be ok to send a defence through to on. As for having issues and not being able to log into MCOL to even confirm I've e-mailed them the defence will that effect whether or not they consider it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 16:28
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,555
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



No, most people don't use MCOL after the AOS stage.

You will learn more from reading other threads, now that you've done this bit, to prepare for what to do next (all set out in post #2 of the MSE NEWBIES thread, BTW). At your stage, most people just ring the court (a dozen or more times, trying to get through!) on the next working day to check the email defence is received.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 16:40
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Right I'll give them a call to confirm soon. Also, as I stated in my first post in this thread, there was another PCN which I now have received a claim form for. They didn't respond to my initial appeal, nor my response to the LBC they sent. Is there any way to be efficient and deal with that one without having to possibly go to court a 2nd time?

This post has been edited by WhiteTsBlackJeans: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 16:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 27 Aug 2017 - 17:02
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,555
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Same parking firm and same essential issues, same car park?

You could put a covering letter with your DQ in each case (see the NEWBIES thread for what happens when) asking the court to make an order of their own volition to add claim number xxxxxx to claim number xxxxxx, since they are a repeat of the same matter and should have been brought as one claim to avoid wasting the court's resources and causing you more cost in defending the same thing twice, and attending two hearings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Mon, 4 Sep 2017 - 13:15
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Yeah it's a carbon copy of the incident at same place. So in terms of my defence for the 2nd claim would it be necessary to add anything else as compared to the first defence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 4 Sep 2017 - 17:00
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,555
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



I would add a point mentioning the first claim number, saying that the claims both deal with the same matter and facts, and state that:

The Defendant considers the 2 claims an abuse of process and waste of time and potentially, extra money, as well as the court's stretched resources. As such, the Defendant asks that the matter is referred to a Judge at the earliest opportunity before allocating the claim, with a view to an order of the Court's own volition to merge the claims and/or order that they be heard on the same day with one set of evidence/witness statements from the parties, and one hearing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Tue, 12 Sep 2017 - 19:55
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



So I've amended and sent off the 2nd defence recently and have received the DQ for the first defence from the court. Read the other forum for how to proceed with it as advised and have got together a cover letter to go with it as below. Please give any suggestions for change.



The Defendant has been informed that the Claimant has proposed a hearing on the papers because it considers the matter to be relatively straightforward.
The Claimant also requests to transfer the hearing to the claimants local court if the Defendant does not consent.

The Defendant objects strongly to these proposals.

The Defendant denies that the matter is relatively straightforward.

The issues in dispute include the claimant's legal capacity and the defendant's liability.
As a litigant in person, the defendant would be seriously disadvantaged against the claimant, a parking company that has employed its trade association's solicitor to prepare its documents.
The particulars of claim are entirely lacking in detail and the defendant is concerned that the claimant will attempt to introduce new arguments in its witness statement that he will have no opportunity to rebut.

The Defendant will wish to question the claimant regarding its witness statement and other documents.
The Defendant will in particular want the claimant to explain why the claimant and the party originally demanding the payment are two different legal entities and why the claimant has continued to pursue the defendant after any right to recover payment from the registered keeper ended when the driver was identified. (Not sure about this bit saying 'driver was indentified')

The Defendant therefore requests that the matter is transferred to his local court in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules when the defendant is a consumer.

The Defendant considers the 2 claims, claim no's xxxxxx and xxxxxx, an abuse of process and waste of time and potentially, extra money, as well as the court's stretched resources. As such, the Defendant asks that the matter is referred to a Judge at the earliest opportunity before allocating the claim, with a view to an order of the Court's own volition to merge the claims and/or order that they be heard on the same day with one set of evidence/witness statements from the parties, and one hearing.


This post has been edited by WhiteTsBlackJeans: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 - 19:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 08:04
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,706
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Did you get the gladstones usual request for hearing on papers? If so then that cover letter is approrpiate
If not, then you only need the end bit

I would actually lead with the two claims - I would ask for the second claim filed to be struck out as an abuse of process and an attempt at double recovery.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 11:35
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



So something like this:

The Defendant considers the 2 claims, claim no's xxxxxx and xxxxxx, an abuse of process and waste of time and potentially, extra money, as well as the court's stretched resources. As such, the Defendant asks that the matter is referred to a Judge at the earliest opportunity before allocating the claim, with a view to an order of the Court's own volition to merge the claims and/or order that they be heard on the same day with one set of evidence/witness statements from the parties, and one hearing. The Defendant also asks for the second claim filed to be struck out as an abuse of process and an attempt at double recovery.


Also just to get clarity, I've received DQ from Gladstones asking for hearing on paper and I've also got DQ from the court. Just to confirm I'm right in thinking I ignore Gladstones one and only respond to the courts DQ with a request for it to be at my local court and for an oral hearing with the cover letter above on this thread?

And then post it to court by deadline and just send a copy by e-mail to Gladstones?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 11:42
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,706
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You cannot also ask for the claim to be struck
If the claim is struck then there is nothing to merge

You ask for th claim to be struck FIRST. "In the alternative" you ask the court to merge. Think about it logically!

Yes, you do not fill out the gladstones one, just the N180 from the court. Include the cover letter as above, LEADING with the requuest for the second claim to be struck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Fri, 29 Sep 2017 - 09:11
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Sorry I couldn’t respond sooner, been busy and had issues trying to log in. Below is my amended request from the advice provided. Please can anyone advise if it’s good to go, cheers.

The Defendant considers the 2 claims, claim no's xxxxxx and xxxxxx, an abuse of process and waste of time and potentially, extra money, as well as the court's stretched resources. As such, the Defendant asks for the second claim filed to be struck out as an abuse of process and an attempt at double recovery.

Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the matter is referred to a Judge at the earliest opportunity before allocating the claim, with a view to an order of the Court's own volition to merge the claims and/or order that they be heard on the same day with one set of evidence/witness statements from the parties, and one hearing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 20:19
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,555
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Just reviewing this now, WhiteTsBlackJeans - sorry to see you had no reply 6 weeks ago.

Do you now have a court date (just one date?) and need to sort out your Witness Statement and evidence to file by a certain date before the hearing?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 13:54
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Hi, yes, apologies for lack of update. The court did combine both claims into one hearing. I have a date real soon and due to work commitments etc haven't had time to muster up a draft for witness statement. How would I approach a start to it and how soon before the date would I be able to submit it? If in the likelihood it was submitted late would I still be in a strong position to win my case?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 15:16
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,706
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



When does it say you need to submit WS by? The court hearing letter tells you EXACTLY

Some details would be helpful!

Usually the deadline for your WS AND your documents is 14 days before. BUt check.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 18:46
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



Yeah it says 14 days before so I am short on time
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 19:00
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,555
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
The court did combine both claims into one hearing. I have a date real soon


Good. One claim is less hassle and less potentially costly.

Your WS is simply the story of what happened when, and referring to your evidence by number, putting the whole thing into a ring binder in paginated order, with a contents page to make it nice & readable for the Judge. Hand that in person (or get someone to do so) before the date the court closes for Christmas (check!!) or not less than 14 days before the hearing, if sooner.

Email a full copy of all the gubbins (WS and evidence) to Gladstones.

Here's an example of a numbered Witness Statement, referencing evidence:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...29#post73554329

That one is a bit long, doesn't have to be like that as long as you say what is needed, and include ALL your evidence(photos, transcripts, and anything else your defence relied on.

Just reminding everyone what your case is about and where:

QUOTE (WhiteTsBlackJeans @ Mon, 22 May 2017 - 08:29) *
Right I understand now, cheers. The incident took place around November time or so at Capitol Boulevard, as part of the Village Hotel car park. Reason stated on letter was unauthorised parking. Received 2 PCNs with picture only of rear side of car parked in a bay within a week but they came as part of one envelope, possibly due to them being within consecutive dates. I followed as per advice on newbies sticky and sent template appeal letters from on here for IPC members, both appeals being sent together in one envelope as they did to me with PCN and I obtained free proof of delivery.

Since then though they only sent frequent letters requesting payment for only one of the PCNs, as if to make it out they had not received appeal to other one, when they definitely would have. As advised on here any letters up until one posted at beginning of this topic, where it stopped coming as UK Car Park Management and instead as Debt Recovery Plus, were ignored. Now it's just this 'Gladstones' one to query.

I apologise in advance for quality of pictures below but I've attached a picture below off of Google maps roughly showing where car would've been parked:



And then one of the signs that would have been up:


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 21:08
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,706
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



If you tell us your court date it would help. I did mention details!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WhiteTsBlackJean...
post Mon, 18 Dec 2017 - 15:44
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 18 Jul 2016
Member No.: 85,718



If anyone can have a look over what I have done below so far for my WS, suggest any amendments and anything to add after would appreciate it.



Witness Statement

1. Sequence Of Events
1.1 I am xxxxxx xxxxxx, being the Defendant in this case. I am an unrepresented consumer with no experience of Court procedure. Should I not present my case as professionally as the Claimant’s, I trust that the Court excuses my inexperience and reserves any criticism for the extremely sparse particulars filed by the Claimant’s Solicitors.

1.2 The Claimant has been extremely unclear as to what the ‘parking charge’ in question refers to, referring to it on separate occasions as a charge for ‘unauthorised parking’, a ‘consideration for parking’ and a charge for ‘breach of terms’ - all very different things. This makes is very difficult to focus my defence and I apologise if, as a result, this statement seems rather long-winded.

1.3. This claim refers to parking incidents in marked bays at Capital Boulevard within the Village Hotel car park as shown (exhibit 1).

1.4. It is true that the Defendant is the registered keeper and was so at the time of the incidents. However, that does not deem the keeper liable as the Claimant has not identified the driver and would therefore need to adhere to the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold the Defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.

1.5. After receiving 2 ‘parking charge notices’ on 25th November 2016, (as shown in exhibit 2 and 3) on the 20th December 2016 I, the Defendant, wrote to the Claimant requesting the following information:

a) Full particulars of the parking charges
b) Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management Ltd.
c) The full legal identity of the landowner
d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park¬¬
Management had their authority.
e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and, if so, to provide
justification of this sum
f) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking
and, if so, to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
g) To provide a copy of the signs that UK Car Park Management Ltd can evidence
were on site and which contended formed a contract with the driver on those occasions,
as well as all photographs taken of the vehicle in question.

The Claimant did not respond to both my responses, just 1 but without the requested information aforementioned.

Even in both the Notice to Keeper they failed to give the statutory warning to the registered keeper about the '28 day period' which is mandatory wording as prescribed in paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant would be unable to rely on the 'keeper liability' provisions of the POFA 2012.

1.6. From then onwards the Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands, from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd on their behalf, which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent adding further unexplained charges of £25 to the £100 with no evidence of how this extra charge has been calculated. These intimidation tactics to try and justify chasing these sparse claims underline further the manner in which this company operates.

1.7. I heard nothing further from the Claimant until around the 7th May 2017 and 5th June 2017 respectively, whereby Debt Recovery Plus had followed up their previous letter but this time by using Gladstones Solicitors letterhead, which was questionable as to whether or not they had permission to use.

1.8. On around 21st June 2017 I received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones Solicitors to commence legal action for ‘debts’ owed to their client. Somehow the ‘charge’ they had been chasing had now inflated to £160 with no valid explanation as to how.

2. No Contract Exists
2.1 I understand from correspondence with the Claimant that the Claimant’s case relies upon the signage at the site (exhibit 10) constituting a ‘contract’ between myself and the Claimant as per ParkingEye vs Beavis. The ‘breach of terms’ on the Particulars Of Claim presumably refers to the supposed ‘contract’ formed by this signage.

2.2 In ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’, on which the Claimant relies to justify this charge, it was found that a contract could exist because there was a meaningful ‘offer’ made to the Defendant (that of a licence allowing free parking for a set period of time) and that the Defendant’s agreeing not to overstay this period could constitute a ‘consideration’ in respect of this. The ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ judgement is littered with references to the disputed charge being justifiable only in the context of the ‘contractual licence to park’ being given to the Defendant, e.g. ‘They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there’.

2.3 There is no such ‘offer’ made by the signage in this case, no ‘contractual licence’, no ‘benefit of free parking‘ and no conceivable way I could have benefitted from this alleged ‘contract’ without breaching its terms.

2.4 The parking contract in ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ case was judged to be ‘objectively reasonable’ partly because ‘motorists generally’ did accept it (108). The landowner wanted as many people as possible to use the car park in question so the contractual arrangements were designed to be attractive to the average motorist. This is the complete antithesis of the supposed ‘contract’ in this case which is designed to actively discourage motorists from parking at the site. The terms of this ‘contract‘are not ‘objectively reasonable’, but deliberately designed to be so heinous that no one in their right mind would agree to them. It follows that this is not a ‘contract’ but a prohibitory notice masquerading as such.

2.5 In J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw in the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning states that ‘the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it’. This is commonly referred to the ‘Red Hand Rule’. As the terms of this ‘contract’ (specifically the clause relating to a £100 parking charge) are designed to discourage motorists from accepting them it follows that they must be ‘unreasonable’ and that therefore Lord Denning’s rule should apply.

2.6 The Claimant has not applied Lord Denning’s ‘Red Hand Rule’ to the terms and conditions in this case. The sentence that refers to a ‘parking charge’ is in an extremely small font (one of the smallest on the sign) which, given that this sign is supposed to be read from a vehicle, is woefully inadequate - particularly when compared to the signage in the ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ case.

2.7 The very act of entering into this alleged ‘contract’ (parking) constitutes a breach of its terms, therefore making it impossible to perform.

2.8 Both the PCN and Notice to Keeper I was issued by the Claimant state the reason for the disputed charge as being ‘Unauthorised Parking’. I cannot be seen to have entered into a contract for something I was not ‘authorised’ to do.

2.9 The signage and its wording at this site is almost exactly the same as the signage in the case of ‘Parking Control Management v Bull’ (exhibit ) in which the Judge found that it was ‘impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.’ and that therefore any charges made on the basis of said signage would be damages for trespass and must constitute reparations for actual loss.

2.10 The signage at the site is also very similar to the signage in the cases of ‘Horizon Parking v Mr J. Guildford’ and ‘ES Parking Enforcement v Ms A. Manchester’ in which it was ruled that, if any contractual arrangement could be implied by such signage, then it only applied to vehicles which were ‘authorised’ to park and therefore charges could not be made on a contractual basis for vehicles that were not ‘authorised’ to park.

3. Inadequate Signage
3.1 A key factor in ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ was that the relevant signs were ‘large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature’ and ‘The charge is prominently displayed in large letters at the entrance to the car park and at frequent intervals within it’. That is not the case here.

3.2 In‘Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest’ the Court of Appeal ruled that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. In this case, which was found in favour of the motorist, the signage was deemed insufficient because there was no sign directly adjacent to the Appellant’s parking bay and the only signage that was displayed could not have been seen from within the vehicle whilst parking. In this case there was no sign adjacent to my vehicle, I had not passed any signs to park, and no signs in the vicinity could possibly be read from my vehicle.

3.3 A key factor in ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice.

3.4 In this case the signage and operating practice of the Claimant fails, on numerous counts, to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking operator - The International Parking Community (IPC).

3.4.1 The IPC guidelines state that signage at the entrance to the site should ‘Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land’. There is no signage at the entrance to the site in question and one can see from the photographs that I would not have passed any signage indicating I was entering private land.

3.4.2 The IPC guidelines state that text on signage ‘should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’ The text on the signage, particularly that which refers to ‘contractual terms’ and a ‘parking charge’ is very small. This, coupled with the fact that the sign is mounted at least 6ft off the ground, makes it very hard to read and impossible to read from a vehicle.

3.4.3 The IPC guidelines state that signage that is intended to form a contract should ‘Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site’. It is more-or-less impossible to read this signage whilst driving as it is mounted on a pole at least 6ft high.

4. Consumer Rights
4.1 If a contract were deemed to exist between myself and the Claimant it would, under the terms of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13), be defined as a ‘distance contract’. As ‘distance contract’ is defined as ‘a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded’.

4.2 As a ‘distance contract’, the signage at the site does not carry the information required by The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13), specifically on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2.

4.3 As the signage does not carry the information required as specified in 4.2 (above) I have the right to cancel the contract as specified by The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (exhibit 13) clause 31 ‘Cancellation period extended for breach of information requirement’.


5. Landowner Authority
5.1 Despite being asked, the Claimant has not provided any indication that they are authorised by the landowner to issue parking charges and carry out court proceedings on their behalf. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have they authority to do this, and that the terms and conditions of parking they impose at the site are in line with what they have been authorised to do.

6. Additional Costs
6.1 The Particulars of Claim include £60 over and above the original ‘parking charge’. I have no idea what these charges refer to as there appears to be no contractual basis for them, even if one were to take the Claimants somewhat far-fetched view as to what constitutes a ‘contract’ into account. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified.

6.2 The Particulars of Claim include £50 for ‘solicitors costs’ yet all I have received from the Claimant’s solicitors are automated letters. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these ‘solicitors costs’ are justified.


This post has been edited by WhiteTsBlackJeans: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 - 15:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 >
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: Sunday, 24th June 2018 - 22:20
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.