Printfriendly

Thursday, 29 June 2017

CCJ overturned for Heath Parade

PCMUK v Mr E. Shoreditch and Clerkenwell 26/06/2017 DJ Cross

Mr E was driving near the notorious Heath Parade scam site. He needed to stop, so pulled into a layby. Having seen some signs on the wall when he pulled in he then got out of the car to try and understand what the signs said and if they were related to parking. The signs could not be read from inside the car as they were high on the wall and the font was too small. The signs stated that stopping was not allowed, so Mr E got back in his car and left.

As is common on this scam site, the PCMUK operative (presumably Ms Sunglasses) leapt out from hiding and took a photograph of Mr E's car before he left.

Mr E received a PCN from PCMUK in January 2016 which he contested and appealed through the IPC process. The appeal was unsuccessful and a debt recovery letter from DRP followed, which was ignored. In April 2016 Mr E moved house. The change of address was relayed to the DVLA and an updated V5 sent out.

Some post forwarded to the new address included a further debt recovery letter from Zenith dated June 2016. After that nothing further was heard on the matter.

Fast forward to March 2017 and Mr E was made aware of a letter sent to his old address from Gladstones stating that they have recently obtained a CCJ on behalf of PCMUK and that he will have "no doubt received a copy of the Judgement of the Court."

He therefore asked for help on MSE.

MSE assisted him in asking for a set-aside and preparing his defence.

The hearing did not last long - around 5 minutes. PCMUK did not bother to turn up. DJ Cross awarded the set-aside and then immediately struck out the claim  for failure to comply with the CPR.

Mr E was awarded £50 costs, plus the set-aside fee of £255.

Prankster Notes

Gladstones Solicitors are well known for their incompetence. Plenty of previous cases have been thrown out for failing to file proper particulars of claim. Gladstones solicitor Jamie Ashford explained to the Prankster that it is not economically viable for them to bother to file proper particulars of claim. Presumably then they are playing a numbers game, hoping that most people are bullied into paying up because the thought of court frightens them.

The Prankster considers Gladstones Solicitors, owned by Will Hurley and John Davies are morally bankrupt in pursuing this strategy.

As the MSE site shows, filing a strong defence against Gladstones Solicitors will likely as not result in a win for the motorist. It therefore appears that the majority of the claims Gladstones file have no reasonable prospect of success. Motorists facing a claim are therefore advised to research the situation to decide whether to file a defence or to pay the claim.

PCMUK, you've been Gladstoned.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster




3 comments:

  1. Excellent, always get a cert. of posting to prove you sent off the new address to the the DVLA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? the fact he had an update v5 is enough proof. Not that it matters, PPCs don't ever go back to the DVLA for updated details. Some might say this because there is more chance of the claim being defended if the defendant knows about it

      Delete
    2. PPCs cannot go back to the DVLA for updated details, they only have one bite of the cherry - at the time of issuing the notice to keeper. They are not updated when/if the v5 is amended. The only way they would be aware of an address change is if the motorist informs them, or they use a tracing agency.

      Prior to issuing a court claim I believe they should attempt to contact the motorist via post, if no response, a tracing agency should be used to verify current address. Only after proof that that process has been completed should the court allow a case to progress.

      Delete