Bargepole has notched up another victory against the incompetent bunch of chancers making up Gladstones Solicitors. Gladstones are run by John Davies and Will Hurley, two legal lightweights who specialise in filing parking related claims while doing no due diligence. This means that many of their claims have no legal basis, thereby leaving their clients open to large costs.
Court report 24/05/2017
Bargepole was representing Mr K. The claimant’s advocate was Mr Shippard, a solicitor’s agent, but no challenge was made to his Right of Audience as that would have risked an adjournment, which the Defendant didn’t want. As it turned out, they got one anyway.
This case involved the notorious Heath Parade in NW9, blogged about by the Prankster on more than one occasion. The DDJ homed in on the forbidding signage argument that was held in the PCM(UK) v Bull & others case, and thought that would be the deciding factor if he decided that it was persuasive. However, although he had the transcript of the judgment before him, he did not have an image of the sign that DJ Glen had ruled upon in the Bull case.
He therefore gave Directions that the case would be adjourned to the next open date after 28 days, Defendant to file and serve an image of the signage from the Bull case, plus additional Skeleton if desired, within 7 days, and Claimant to file any further arguments in a skeleton 7 days after that. Costs were reserved.
He used to be indecisive, now he’s not so sure.
New Witness Statement
Following the filing of a further Witness Statement attaching a copy of the signage from the Bull case, showing that it is virtually identical to that at Heath Parade, Gladstones have now sent a Notice of Discontinuance.
Mr K has filed a costs schedule asking for his costs of £358.50. If Gladstones fail to pay within 14 days then he will ask for a costs hearing to decide the issues.
Signage at Chequers Avenue, ruled as not forming a contract in the case of PCM(UK) v Bull & others.
This seems like a strategic withdrawal by Gladstones. They apparently don't want a comprehensive loss at this site on record. No doubt they will shamelessly continue to file court claims regarding this site, hoping that motorists will be bullied into paying up without contesting the claim.
The Prankster considers this reprehensible behaviour and morally indefensible on the part of John Davies and Will Hurley, and their minions Jamie Ashford and Helen Cook.
The Prankster suggests that in cases with similar signage the defendant files the transcript of PCM(UK) v Bull, available at this link, and also a copy of the signage in that case.
The Prankster also notes that the IPC approve all signage used by their operators. The IPC is owned by Will Hurley and John Davies. As the signage is clearly deficient and not fit for purpose, The Prankster considers that IPC members may have a claim against Will Hurley and John Davies for costs incurred because of their poor advice.
The Prankster also wonders why the government have granted an ATA licence to the IPC when it is clearly run by two individuals with little or no knowledge of parking related law. These two individuals have lost all credibility and The Prankster suggests it is time for the government to revisit their licence to operate, based on the large number of court hearings their sister firm has lost.
The Parking Prankster