Parking charge notice- now received county court claim form

leeda84 wrote: »

Street view on Google Maps is your friend - Jersey St car park, Manchester taken in June 2015.

Hi Leeda84,

Yes that's the one, althought google maps street view doesn't let me into the car park to zoom in on the signs- i'm not sure how much use the big sign at the front will be?

Thanks for your help

Hi all,
I'm just finalising my draft defence and there is something i'm a little unclear on. Is a notice to keeper the ticket that was issued on my windscreen? From reading I think the ticket on my windscreen is Notice to Driver- which should have been followed up with a Notice to keeper? All I have is the PCN ticket dated 25/5 and Letter before claim dated 20/9? (and of course the court claim form)

Thanks in advance for your help

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Show us your draft defence and if it's a Gladstones one, base it on others you see that were written recently, by searching 'Gladstones incoherent'. You want that wording...

right here goes...

1. It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

2. The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been ascertained.

a. The Claimant did not identify the driver
b. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
c. The Claimant's demanding letter failed to evidence any contravention or clear/prominent signage

3. 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 £150. This appears to be an added cost with no reason and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

a. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

4. The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist

a. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it difficult to read, it is only visible on foot and not in direct line of site meaning you have to go out of your way to look for the sign

5. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.

a. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible
b. The car park in question is one which I am completely familiar with and I know the ticket machine is subject to frequent malfunctions, meaning users have to rely on the pay by phone mobile app, which again is subject to frequent malfunctions. The parking cost was paid for in full as soon as the app was working again, so the claimant has not lost out financially meaning the driver is not liable for further charges. The pay-by-phone app which involves an exchange of more than one step , falls under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and the 'contract' failed the requirements of those regulations in more than one way
c. In Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 EGLR 154, it was held that a party who makes reasonable endeavours to comply with contractual terms, should not be penalised for breach when unable to fully comply with the terms


6. I researched the matter online, and discovered that the Claimant is a member of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC), an organisation operated by Gladstones Solicitors. They also operate the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the IPC. My research revealed that the IAS, far from being independent, is a subsidiary of the IPC, which in turn is owned and run by the same two Directors who also run Gladstones Solicitors. The individuals in question are John Davies, and William Hurley. Such an incestuous relationship is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. As such, the Claimant does not come to this matter with clean hands.

7. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.

a. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
b. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.

8. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the
Particulars of Claim.
a. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
b. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
c. There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
exchange of information.
d. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
e. 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.’
f. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.


I can no longer see the wood for the trees, there is so much useful information on this site it really is great, but taxing on the old brain cells!

Any feedback on the above would be very much appreciated, hopefully i'm not too far off the mark.

Thanks for your support