Wednesday, 26 October 2016

District Enforcement - you've been Gladstoned

C8GF33C8 District Enforcement v Mr X. Portsmouth

Incompetent rogues Gladstones Solicitors have had yet another claim chucked out, this time without even making it to a hearing.

In order to save money Gladstones do not bother to do any meaningful due diligence and just file an incomprehensible load of rubbish as the particulars of claim. Judges are wising up to this, and striking out claims.

In this particular case the judge was slightly more lenient and gave Gladstones until 3rd August to file a comprehensible claim. Gladstones could not be bothered with this deadline, and instead filed on the 5th August.

Mr X asked the court to strike out the claim as Gladstones had not complied with directions, and in any case the particulars of claim contained false information, by containing a sign which was not present at the car park.

The court struck out the claim on the 17th September, and Mr X got the good news on the 21st.

Prankster Note

The Prankster has seen the signs on site and confirms that Gladstones were trying to file false information with the court. The Prankster considers this unacceptable behaviour and that if they cannot be bothered to be truthful, they should not be in this business.

With the number of cases being struck out by judges, the Prankster consider that this confirms that Will Hurley and John Davies are confirmed as rogues and charlatans of the highest order by claiming to offer a reputable service to parking operators while clearly doing nothing of the sort.

To recap, here are the mandatory Solicitor Regulatory Association principles which apply to all solicitors.

You must:
1. uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice;
2. act with integrity;
3. not allow your independence to be compromised;
4. act in the best interests of each client;
5. provide a proper standard of service to your clients;
6. behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services;
7. comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsmen in an open, timely and co-operative manner;
8. run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles;
9. run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity; and
10. protect client money and assets.

As Gladstones clearly fail in the first five principles, The Prankster wonders why parking operators have not yet filed any complaints. Perhaps it is because they are worried that if they do, Will Hurley and John Davies will kick them out of the IPC.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster


  1. Surely they are doing all this on a no win no fee basis??

    Probably only costs them £10 to send in their boilerplate bollix claim pack [cut and paste, etc] they can afford the odd loss.

    The PPco is probably happy as they have to do nothing much and it only costs them when they win???

    1. I would think it more likely this costs them nothing to file, and the PPC just fills in an online form. Everything is then automated up to the DQ, which needs manual intervention.

  2. they should be barred from using MCOL.

  3. Surely this is perjury or even fraud?

  4. Surely they also fail in requirements 6, 7, 8 and 10.

  5. Dyl Kurpil has usually undertaken his own litigation through his own 'legally qualified team'.

    Makes you wonder why he's now fallen for the 'charms' of Gallstones? Perhaps his legally qualified team have now got proper jobs?

  6. Perhaps Gladstones are trying to wipe out the entire PPC industry throught failing these claims.

  7. Should we be enouraging the Parking Companies to RETAIN Gladstones as their solicitors? By doing otherwise we may be shooting ourselves in the foot, ie we would have to face competent opposition?