The judge threw out a claim filed by the hapless solicitor firm, describing it as 'incoherent'.
This is not an isolated incident, and The Prankster is aware of large numbers of other claims filed by Gladstones which have had similar treatment.
Gladstones once explained to The Prankster that they filed claims like this because they could not afford to do a better job. Essentially, it was not cost effective to comply with Practice Directions. The Prankster consider that if they cannot file claims properly, they should not be filing claims at all.
This tweeter explained he would not hire Gladstones with stolen money.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
If Gladstone has admitted that it cannot afford to properly submit claims, then they should be reported to the SRA for failure in their duty and lack of due diligence.
ReplyDeleteWould anyone with any sense employ a chauffeur that doesn't have a driving license? There's really no difference.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the PPC's are effectively being scammed by this mob is the only Glad thing about the whole fiasco.
The silly thing is that it's not hard to draft a decent POC and then just template the damn thing. I do that for my SPAM claims - knock up a decent template, fill out the relevant bits where the offence is committed (PECR, DPA, etc.) and bingo you have a decent, coherent POC.
ReplyDeleteThey're idiots.
http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?83833-**WON!!!!!!!**-PCM-(uk)-ltd-Gladstones-court
ReplyDelete