Yet another comical Gladstones Solicitors claim has bitten the dust.
Last November a motorist received a charge from Euro Parking Services, who eventually filed a claim assisted by the amazingly unprofessional Gladstones Solicitors.
The motorist's defence was that Euro didn't have a contract with the land owner when they took court action, weren't granted a license in their contract to offer parking - only enforcement, had illegally used the ICO logo on their notices and to top it off, hadn't bothered to check if the motorist was the keeper of the vehicle.
Their witness the CEO, prepared a witness statement with the assistance of Gladstones which strongly refuted all claims - a contract did exist, they had checked keeper details, all their signs were present on site, they didn't use the ICO logo (despite it being on documents in their evidence pack) and that the motorist did not want to pay. Only the last part was actually true.
The judge issued directions that any evidence had to be submitted 14 days in advance.
The motorist 'did a Gladstones', sending in his pack in as late as possible. The evidence included a letter from the DVLA confirming the motorist was not the keeper; photos of the site showing no evidence of signs; an email from the land owner saying their contract was up and an email from the ICO saying they didn't have permission to use their logo.
Faced with the reality of the lies Gladstones had filed, Euro caved in and discontinued the claim.
The number of witness statements prepared by Gladstones which contain lies, inaccuracies, half-truths and/or deliberate misinterpretations is, in The Prankster's experience, sadly equal to the number of witness statements prepared by Gladstones.
Either Gladstones are incredibly incompetent, or if the lies are deliberate, morally bankrupt. Only Will Hurley and John Davies, the directors of Gladstones, will know which is correct.
Either way The Prankster consider they are not fit to be practicing solicitors because of their constant failure to abide by the Solicitor's code of practice.
O1.4 you have the resources, skills and procedures to carry out your clients' instructions;
O1.5 the service you provide to clients is competent, delivered in a timely manner and takes account of your clients' needs and circumstances;
The Prankster also considers that Gladstones have not proven they comply with condition O1.6 and have dodged all questions regarding their fee arrangements
O1.6 you only enter into fee agreements with your clients that are legal, and which you consider are suitable for the client's needs and take account of the client's best interests;
Here are some of a solicitors duties to their client and the court
O5.1 you do not attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court;
O5.2 you are not complicit in another person deceiving or misleading the court;
O5.3 you comply with court orders which place obligations on you;
O5.4 where relevant, clients are informed of the circumstances in which your duties to the court outweigh your obligations to your client;
O5.5 you comply with your duties to the court;
It is clear Gladstones have failed multiple times on these counts.
The Parking Prankster