** WON ** (dismissed at court ) Parking Control management - COURT

[Amethyst]

Had you had anything from the court since submitting your DQ ? With a court date on ? and instructions to exchange witness statements by a certain date ?

[RR113]

I had a court date, don't think there was mention of witness statements. I'll take a look at the letter again and report back.

[RR113]

Hi all,

I've checked the paper work, it seems that i have been asked to submit witness statements 14 days before the hearing. The hearing is on the 24th of this month. My fear is that I've left this too late, do I need to submit this or can I argue my case in court?

Can I request a change in the hearing date? Due to mitigating circumstances or this to late as well?

Thanks in advance for your help

[Amethyst]

You can get your WS in today to arrive tomorrow you will be okay. You can email it to the court ( give them a ring and they'll tell you the email address ).

Having read their witness statement, do you believe have a strong enough case to win ? Have they actually countered your defence ?

[RR113]

Having read the witness statement it seems they have countered several areas of my defence. I've attached their witness statement and my defence. They seem to have overlooked the following


15..The defendant relies upon the Oxford County Court decision in JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016 where Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC found that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss Jopson, a resident of a block of flats.

There are no loading bays, and should there have been these could have been used to load/ unload furthermore moving in and out of this apartment block would be impossible if unable to park to unload furniture etc.


But it seems I'll only be able to rely on this.

Should I question their right to represent in court on behalf of pcm?

Also should they win will I have a ccj against me?

Can the whole thing be quashed, if settled before the court hearing?

[RR113]

You can get your WS in today to arrive tomorrow you will be okay. You can email it to the court ( give them a ring and they'll tell you the email address ).

Having read their witness statement, do you believe have a strong enough case to win ? Have they actually countered your defence ?

Hi Amethyst,

I'm having real issues thinking of what to place in the witness statement, the statement they have sent has thrown me and i'm confused as to how to proceed. Can I take snippets from my defence and submit this? I will need to submit this statement before 4 today, i would really appreciate any guidance you can provide, i cannot seem to locate any witness statements on here that i could use as a template. i wish to argue that the signage did not form a contract as it was forbidding. If you know of any other forum posts that i can use to form my witness statement, just so i can get a rough idea, that'll be great. i'm such a fool, i didn't realise i had to sumbit further information and was just waiting to attend court. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

thanks

below is the witness statement sent to me by Gladstone

2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement at ‘GSL1’ are the following documents which i wish to rely
on
i) The Agreement authorising my Company to manage parking on the relevant land (as
described therein and hereinafter referred to as ‘the Relevant Land’);
ii) The Sign (‘the Contract’);
iii) The Site Plan;
iv) Notices;
v) Photographs of the incident.
3. The Defendant is liable for a parking charge relating to the parking of a vehicle on the Relevant
Land in a manner so as to incur the same pursuant to the Contract (i.e. the Sign). Set out in the
Schedule below are details of the parking charge;
PCN Number Date of Charge Location Description
P Parked in restricted area
1
The Defence
Particulars of Claim
4. The Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically
provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of
the Claim. In any event, I can confirm that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient
information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to; namely:-
i) The date of the charge;
ii) The vehicle registration number;
iii) The Parking Charge Notice number;
iv) The amount outstanding;
v) That is relates to parking charges; and
vi) That it is debt.
5. Further, prior to proceedings being issued the Defendant was sent notices in accordance with
the Act and a Letter Before Claim. As such, the Defendant would have been aware of the charge
which is the subject of this claim.
No contract
6. The Defendant suggest there was no contract. The rules of interpretation require simply that the
parties knew of their obligations to one-another. The Defendant was offered to use the Land and
thereafter either follow the rules and park for free or in breach of the rules agree to pay £100.
The rules here just so happen to be that to park, they need to be “in an unrestricted area”.
7. In the case of Alder v Moore (1961) The court concluded that one should consider the obligations
imposed by the agreement, not the terminology used i.e. the agreement’s substance, not form.
8. The principles in this case are the same as in the Parking Eye case, save that in the Parking Eye
case, as the particular parking rules were different, the rule breached was that motorists must
leave the site within 2 hours, whereas here, as set out above, the rule was no parking on the
roadway or on paved areas either wholly or partially”. In that case it was accepted as an
established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and
conditions set out on the sign, and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein.
9. The Court may conclude that the Land is managed as follows; the Claimant grants a contractual
license to all; this license allows anyone permission to be on the Land. This is inferred by the
nature of the land and the lack of any general prohibition of entry on the signage. In this regard,
the Defendant (as were all the motorists) was offered to comply with the normal conditions (as
clear on the sign), or park otherwise than in accordance with the normal conditions and incur a
£100 charge. The acceptance was at the point the Defendant decided to park, having read the
sign, and his consideration was the promise to pay £100 for the privilege of parking outside the
normal conditions. The Claimant’s consideration is the provision of parking services.
10. I refer to the Court to Judge Hegarty’s comments in ParkingEye v Somerfield (2011) that “If this is
the price payable for the privilege, it does not seem to me that it can be regarded as a penalty,
even though it is substantial and obviously intended to discourage motorists from leaving their
cars on the car park”.
2
11. Alternatively; it could be concluded that, any person can use the Land provided they do not
exceed the licensed activity as set out on the sign and in failing to comply with the license
granted to them, they in turn agree to the Claimant’s entirely distinct offer from that license
which is ‘to park otherwise than in accordance with the license for a charge of £100’.
12. The signs on the Land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which they did,
the charge was properly incurred.
Did not see the signs/the terms are unfair
13. My Company rejects any argument that the Defendant did not see the sign. It is evident from the
site plan that there are sufficient signs. The signage at the site is clearly visible and the
information on the signage informs the driver of the parking conditions at the location. Signage is
prominent throughout the parking area. Signage location, size, content and font has been
audited and approved by the International Parking Community (“the IPC”). It is the driver’s
responsibility, to check for signage, check the legality and obtain any authorisation for parking
before leaving their vehicle. The signage on site is the contractual document.
14. What is more, without concession, even in the unlikely event the Defendant didn’t see the signs I
submit they ought to have done so. As Lord Justice Roch observed in the Court of Appeal case of
Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forrest 2000;
“Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car
driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the
law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only
method land owners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces
or parking areas on their property”
No authority to enforce charges
15. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the
authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and
Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a
right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a
parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any
event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences
my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the
Landowner.
16. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186;
(1) “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have
the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not
have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious
flaw in this reasoning.
(2) The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to
perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.
3
If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock
market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words, to sell shares that they
do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the
contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract
of sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to
contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to
perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and
Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held
to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would
not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in
precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the
land.
(3) Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on
the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to
enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a
contract with the motorist to permit parking”
Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered
17. The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy my Company’s
legitimate interest. In the case of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] it was held that an £85.00 charge
was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking
operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of
£100. My Company’s charges are within this level. The charge is therefore not excessive.
Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered
18. The decision of the Supreme Court in Parking Eye v Beavis made it clear that the charges are not
penal, nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator’s loss. Further, the charges can
be set at a level that provides a deterrent effect.
Maximum can recover is on Notice to Keeper (“NTK”) / increased charge
19. The Defendant avers the maximum amount recoverable is £100.00. The Sign does indicate the
applicable charge for failing to comply with the terms of the sign is £100.00, however, the sign is
also clear that enforcement action may incur additional costs for which the Defendant will be
liable on an indemnity basis. Further, the Letter Before Claim also highlights the amount due may
increase in respect of costs and interest if a claim has to be issued.
20. "The Accredited Trade Association (the IPC), of which my Company is an Accredited Operator;
states in its code of practice -
"parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a
prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the
signage and/or other documentation.
Where a parking charge become overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not
exceed £60.00 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated.”
4
21. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed or the further 28 days
allowed after the Notice to Keeper was sent, the Parking Charge has become overdue and a
reasonable sum of £60.00 has been added.
The Current Debt
22. My Company is an Accredited Operator of the International Parking Community (IPC) who
prescribes a maximum charge of £100. The Code of Practice states:
"Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where
there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where
appropriate on the signage and/ or other documentation.
Where a parking charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum
must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have
been initiated."
23. As stated above, in view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the initial 28 days
allowed or the further 28 days allowed after the Notice to Keeper has been sent, the parking
charge has become overdue and a reasonable sum of £60 has been added.
24. The Sign states the prescribed charge for failing to comply with the terms is £100, however it
also specifies "Failure to pay the Charge within 28 days of issue may result in the vehicle's
registered keeper details being requested from the DVLA, alternatively they may be requested
immediately so that a parking charge notice may be served through the post. Enforcement
action may incur additional costs that will be added to the value of the parking charge and for
which the driver will be responsible”. Further the Letter Before Claim also made it clear the debt
may increase in respect of costs and interest if a claim had to be issued. Due to the Defendant
not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company's legal representatives, Gladstones
Solicitors Ltd, who were instructed to commence legal proceedings. The potential additional
costs mentioned above are now sought.
25. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my Company’s staff have spent time and
material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other
elements of my Company’s business. My Company believes the costs associated with such time
spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that
this element of the claim be awarded as a damage. The costs claimed are a pre-determined and
nominal contribution to the actual losses. Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs
pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed:

[Amethyst]

ostell ?

[RR113]

ostell ?

Hi, All would it be possible to get some advice on my ws before i submit it. I will be sending this across in the next hour so would really appreciate your input


IN THE
CLAIM NO:
Parking Control Management (Uk) Limited
(CLAIMANT)
-AND-
(DEFENDANT)
____________________________________
WITNESS STATEMENT OF
____________________________________
I,
1. I am the Defendant. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge
unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by
others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources
are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2. Exhibited to this Witness Statement are the following documents which i wish to rely on


For the avoidance of doubt on the relevant date I was the driver of a M registered number .It is
believed that it will be a matter of common ground that the purported debt arose as the result of
the issue of a parking charge notice in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by
the driver of the above vehicle when it was parked at


The Defence

Particulars of Claim
4. The Particulars of the Claim submitted to the Defendant provide no statement to the nature of the
claim and the Defendant does not believe these particulars to be compliant with Civil Procedure
Rules 16.4 nor Practice Direction 16 7.3-7.5 inhibiting the ability of the Defendant to provide a
comprehensive and conclusive defence statement.The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons
why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from ‘breaching the terms of parking on
the land’.
5. The Claimant asserts that notices were sent to the defendant prior to proceedings/letter before
claim issuance. The defendant refutes this and requests that the claimant provide evidence of such
notices. The Claimant has failed to attach these to their bundle.
No contract
6. The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons why the Claimant requires a payment other than
it results from ‘breaching the terms of parking on the land’. Signage displayed on are forbidding
signs that cannot create a contract
7.
In the cases of B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK)
v Ms L it was demonstrated that forbidding signage at residential parking spaces did not create a
contract.
8.
Should the claimant rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, I wish to point out that there is a
test of good faith. Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and
open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly,
containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms
which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.” Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2
of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of
any signs that are used to form contracts.
9.
It is denied:a contract was formed; That there was an agreement to pay a parking. The signs
erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that
is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer.
It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

Inadequate Signage

The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist because It is barely legible,
making it difficult to read. Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking
Committee (of which ES is a member), clearly states that “Text should be of such a size and in a
font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in
relation to the sign.” (Exhibit II) As can be seen from the attached photographic evidence (Exhibit
II) this is not the case.
Furthermore the signage installed at the site ((Exhibit i))fails to form a contract as it is of a
forbidding nature. If in the alternative it is the claimant's case that the claim is founded in
trespass (which is in any event denied) then in a car park setting any damages in trespass can only
be assessed based on a calculation of the proportion of income lost based on the time of the
alleged occupation. Any sum sought could therefore only be minimal and de-minimis.

There are no loading bays on , and any so called terms imposed by signage
positioned by PCM Limited are impractical for all services loading or unloading to the tenants of ,
such as a courier delivering a parcel. An approach such as the Claimants which restricts any vehicles
that do not ‘park wholly and centrally‘ would leave life in any block of flats close to unworkable.
No authority to enforce charges
The claimant failed to send a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and
Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to
operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1
Section B.1.1 of the IPC Code of Practice outlines to operators: 1.1 If you operate parking
management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written
authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the “Creditor” within the meaning of
the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a
person who is able to recover parking charges. The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such
authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of
any contract based on conduct.

Unfair Charging

The defendant relies upon the Oxford County Court decision in JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES,
Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016 where Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC found
that Home Guard Services had acted unreasonably when issuing a penalty charge notice to Miss
Jopson, a resident of a block of flats.
The defendant at the time was carrying heavy luggage to his vehicle, which he had stopped in an
area to allow ease of loading. This was witnessed by an employee of PCM 'Tina'. Tina accepted
acknowledged that the bags were heavy and stated that the ticket would be rescinded once an
appeal was submitted. She provided her details. The defendant contacted PCM explaining the
circumstances and providing details of the PCM operative. PCM failed to address the issue in line
with their operatives statement.
The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time
beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with
some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to
stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.
Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be
accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for
these purposes. The Defendant had merely stopped to load heavy luggage into his vehicle. There
are no designated loading bays, otherwise these would have been utilised.

Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered

That the amount demanded is therefore excessive and unconscionable and especially so when
compared to the level of Penalty Charge Notice issued by the local Council. The attention of the
court is drawn to para. 4(5) Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 which sets out that the
maximum amount recoverable from the registered keeper(in lieu of the driver), where the keeper
liability provisions have been properly invoked (which is expressly denied in this case) is that
amount specified in the Notice to Keeper (whether issued in accordance with paras 8(2)c; 8(2)d,
9(2)c or 9(2)d of the Act).
The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated,
the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160.

Roboclaim'

The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM
Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such
behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.
On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking charge claim
by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a
hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR.
16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar
parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failed to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16
paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file newparticulars which
they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struckout.

As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have the reasonable
belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name
and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

[ostell]

That looks more like a defence than a witness statement. Witness statement is the story about what happened, in chronological order. Surely those facts went in to your defence? Add in the story of what happened, ie you wanted to offload etc.

[RR113]

That looks more like a defence than a witness statement. Witness statement is the story about what happened, in chronological order. Surely those facts went in to your defence? Add in the story of what happened, ie you wanted to offload etc.

thanks for getting back to me. I have submitted a witness statement to court. Ill have a search through the forums to get an idea of what to expect. would it be wise to write up a document on what to say etc?

[RR113]

Forgot to mention court date is this Thursday

[RR113]

Amethyst

Hi Amethyst, how do i go about having this post moved to the live court section of the site? giving it some exposure may help others/ myself during this week. i would really appreciate some help on how to prepare/ what i should take with me etc.

[RR113]

Kati can you help with moving this to the 'live court section of the forum?

thanks

[RR113]

That looks more like a defence than a witness statement. Witness statement is the story about what happened, in chronological order. Surely those facts went in to your defence? Add in the story of what happened, ie you wanted to offload etc.

Hi All,

Im in court tomorrow. trying to put together what i will be saying. I've got the following would appreciate some guidance

I was staying over at my sister’s apartment located in for a few days and had some heavy luggage with me. She lives on 5^th floor of the apartment block, the block is set back from the main road so it is extremely difficult to carry luggage/ furniture in. As such residents and visitors have to stop their vehicles in close proximity to the apartment to load and unload. Shopping ordered for home delivery is also delivered in this fashion. I would also like to point out that there are no designated loading bays at . My vehicle was parked in an underground car park which is difficult to access with luggage. As I usually stay over for a week I have a lot of luggage with me, I work remotely so always have a laptop with me.

On the 27^th November I was leaving my sisters apartment, I had left my luggage in the reception area on ground floor, and proceeded to get my vehicle. I stopped my vehicle in an open area, exited the car, collected my baggage and returned with it to my car. I had only been gone for a few minutes but on returning to my vehicle I noticed a parking attendant sticking a parking ticket on my car. The attendant seen my hands were full. I approached the attendant and explained that I had only stopped to pick up my luggage. The attendant accepted that the luggage was heavy and awkward to carry, but stated as the ticket had been printed she could not cancel it. She provided me with her Name, ‘...’ and stated that I should immediately contact the appeals department. She stated that by doing so, the ticket would be cancelled. Following her advice, I did as she asked (Exhibit 1). The appeal was rejected the very next day (Exhibit 2). It seems as if no time was spent even considering my appeal. I subsequently wrote a number of letters, in response to the appeal rejection but received no reply. As I had heard nothing back from PCM, I assumed they had accepted my appeal.

I was therefore surprised to receive an N1 form almost a year later.

The claimant is arguing that I entered into a formal contract by stopping my vehicle to load my luggage. By doing so I would be liable to pay a parking charge. I do not agree with this. Firstly signs were not clearly visible and not displayed prominently. I was unaware of any restrictions being in place, therefore not aware of any offers of contract.

The IPC Code of Practice gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says: ‘where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards

Secondly I was not parked, I had only stopped to pick up my luggage, which was heavy. There are no designated loading bays at the block of apartments, and no other method of transporting items to and from the apartment. It would be impossible to live in the apartment block if you are fined for simply loading or unloading personal possessions. Penalising residents for such actions is a business practice which is unfair, contrary to the doctrine of good faith and case law, Jopson v Home Gaurd which highlights this raises this very issue.

Thirdly the signage is of a forbidding nature and therefore fails to form a contract. In the cases of B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B, B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L it was demonstrated that forbidding signage at residential parking spaces did not create a contract. The signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. Further it is trite law that a term that is forbidding cannot also constitute an offer. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed.

@ostell would really value your feedback before the big day tomorrow

[RR113]

Hi all, an update. So at the 1st Court hearing, Gladstone failed to send in their witness statement and the date was rescheduled. The Gladstone representative tried to convince the judge to proceed with a copy of the witness statement he had with him however the judge stated that he would need time to read through. The judge offered to proceed with the hearing but late on in the day, when asked if this was acceptable to me, I asked for the hearing to be rescheduled as I had work commitments.

The hearing was rescheduled for 22/10, to my surprise Gladstone representatives failed to turn up. The judge stated that the particulars of the claim submitted by Gladstone were not sufficient to help her determine what the case was about. Furthermore she stated that Gladstone had yet again failed to file a witness statement. I stated that Gladstone had wasted both mine and the courts time on two seperate occasions. The case was instantly dismissed it.

I'm glad this is all over. I would like to thank everyone on here for the help and support provided. Special shout out to ostell your advice was invaluable, thank you very much for taking the time to help.

Best of luck to all those currently going through a similar situation.. Stick at it.