Kingston upon Thames: 05-10-2016: C7GF642E: Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr Z
According to MSE, ACE Security (AKA Pace Recovery and Storage) are the latest company to find that paying Gladstones an estimated £400 to assist with a claim for a £100 parking charge ends up with them £400 worse off, the legal profession £400 better off, and Will Hurley and John Davies laughing all the way to the bank.
The keeper, Mr Z, who was not the driver, received an NTK to which he replied requesting more particulars ACE sent a very dismissive letter claiming that they don't have to answer questions as the letter was from the Internet. They passed the case to their Solicitors, Gladstones.
Mr Z. received a Letter Before Claim to which he replied with the same questions. Gladstones never answer these questions because otherwise it makes the case uneconomic for them. They can only make a profit if they ignore practice directions, refuse to respond to requests for information and do no due diligence before filing claims.
As is their standard operating practice, Gladstones did not respond to the letter and instead filed their usual shoddy claim which failed to provide the information required by Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 – 7.5. This is a shameful trick used by Gladstones so that defendants have no chance to file a proper defence.
In their direction questionnaire Gladstones requested that the case was dealt with on paper, which Mr Z. opposed. This is another disreputable ploy used by Gladstones. At this point the defendant still has no idea of what the case is about, and will not have until Gladstones file their witness statement. At that point the defendant will be out of time to file more paper, and so is almost guaranteed to lose a paper hearing.
Luckily Mr Z was well aware of the legal tricks Gladstones use and requested a hearing in his home court. Mr Z filed all his evidence and witness statements with the court and Gladstones. Gladstones sent a very lengthy defence giving me all the information requested in his very first letter to ACE. ACE were meant to be represented by their owner and his defence was clearly written by one of the solicitors, being based on a well-known template Gladstones use.
On the hearing day ACE was represented by a rent-a-mouth advocate who had no clue what the case was about and was frantically checking his laptop and mumbling something. According to Mr Z, this advocate and Gladstones' practice were well known to the judge who dismissed the claim within 3 minutes of the hearing.
Gladstones did not file any documents with the court, which is par for the course for their shambolic organisation.
ACE Security - you've been Gladstoned!
The Parking Prankster