Gladstones CCC - UKCPM

The exhibits which the defendant intends to rely upon are as follows:

Ex. AH1. Defence statement
Ex. AH2. Insurance certificate
Ex. AH3. Notice to Driver
Ex. AH4. Extract from Lease
Ex. AH5a. Image of parking area from Google Street View
Ex. AH5b. Plan of Parking Sign Placement
Ex. AH6a. Image of parking sign at entrance to xx Close 11th March 2016
Ex. AH6b. Image of parking sign at entrance to xx Close 8th December 2016
Ex. AH6c. Image of parking sign at entrance to xx Close 11th February 2017
Ex. AH6d. Image of parking sign at entrance to xx Close 6th May 2017
Ex. AH7a. Image of parking area wooden fence version 1
Ex. AH7b. Image of parking area wooden fence version 2
Ex. AH7c. Image of parking area sign
Ex. AH8. Image of parking sign at entrance to xx Close from car
Ex. AH9. Email from BPA
Ex. AH10. Parking sign by Private Eye in Beavis case to demonstrate clear signage
Ex. AH11. Notice to Keeper Letter from Claimant to registered keeper
Ex. AH12. Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, schedule 4
Ex. AH13. Excerpt from Barrister Henry Greenslade on ‘Keeper Liability’ POLPA annual report, 2015
Ex. AH14. Letter before Claim letter from Gladstones solicitors
Ex. AH15. Particulars of Claim letter from Gladstones solicitors
Ex. AH16. Part 18 Request to Gladstones solicitors¬
Ex. AH17. Subject Access Request letter
Ex. AH18. Subject Access Request follow up letter

1. My name is xxx. I live at xxx. I am the defendant in this matter and litigant in person. I make this statement from my own knowledge and personal experience.

2. The facts of the case are as set out in my Statement of Defence, filed in response to the original claim and verified by a statement of truth. They do not bear further repetition here, but by this statement I now adduce evidence in order to prove my case. A copy of the statement of defence can be seen in Exhibit AH1.

3. It is admitted that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time in question, but I do not admit that I was the driver. My insurance certificate shows myself and one other named driver (Exhibit AH2). Further to this, on the day in question, my car was having some work done on it by a family member, who I gave permission to move the car from the garage to the parking area, so as to have the space required to complete the work.

4. My vehicle received a Notice to Driver on xth xxx 2016, PCN number nnnnnn (Exhibit AH3). The vehicle was parked on a private estate. The reason stated for the PCN was ‘overstay’. The lease, dated 15th April 2011 (Exhibit AH4) does not contain any terms that define an overstay nor does it give any right for the freeholder to recover any set penalty if the leaseholder parking terms are breached. If the freeholder is not entitled to impose and recover a set penalty, then it cannot have granted this right to the Claimant and the Claimant cannot exercise it. According to the Managing Agent, parking control was introduced in 2013. There has been no variance to the terms of the lease.

5. Regarding the signage, I am afraid this is nothing short of a fiasco. Since the PCN was issued to my vehicle on xth xxx 2016, the Claimant has changed its signage several times. Chronologically, this is what has occurred:

a. The parking area is shown by Google Street View (Exhibit AH5a) and a plan showing the parking bays and entrance to the parking area (Exhibit AH5b).

b. at the time of the parking event: there was an entrance sign (Exhibit AH6a) marked as X on the plan referred to above. This contained no terms at all about parking for visitors and there was no sign at all in the visitors' area. The entrance sign referred to general parking terms only. A view of the parking area with no sign is shown in Exhibit AH7a (1st May 2016) and Exhibit AH7b (18th September 2016).

c. Sometime in September 2016, a sign (Exhibit AH7c) was put up in the visitors' area, on the fence which is marked Y on the plan referred to at a. above. This was not displayed at the time of the parking event.

d. In addition, the sign at the entrance to the visitors’ area was changed in September 2016 (Exhibit AH6b), showing the visitors' parking terms applied between midnight and 8am. It was changed again in January 2017 (Exhibit AH6c) to show the visitors' parking terms applied between 8am and midnight. Finally, just this month (4th May) this sign was changed again, this time to an official IPC one (Exhibit AH6d). Note the visitors’ parking terms have been removed again.

e. At the time of the parking event until January 2017, all signs on the estate showed the BPA Approved Operator logo. The BPA confirmed that the Claimant was not an Approved Operator (Exhibit AH9). They have been an IPC Approved Operator since 1st October 2015. This shows a general lack of regard by the Claimant for due process - it was not entitled to display the BPA roundel, which is a breach of The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

6. Exhibit AH8 shows the view of the sign from a car entering XXX (marked X on the plan). Being on the right hand side of the road and at a height, it is far from clear as to what the parking terms are when viewed from the driver’s point of view. Please refer to (Exhibit AH10) Parking sign in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to demonstrate clear signage capable of forming a contract.

7. I received a Notice to Keeper dated xth xxx 2016 (Exhibit AH11) for PCN number nnnnnn (dated xth xxx 2016).

8. At the time I did not respond to any of the above as I had done some research into the IAS (Independent Appeals Service). 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. This set-up is incapable of providing any fair means for motorists to challenge parking charges, as well as potentially breaching the SRA Code of Conduct. This claimant's Solicitors appear to pay little regard to the 'overriding objective' within pre-court protocols, issuing incoherent copy & paste claims with no due diligence.

9. No evidence has been supplied by this Claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under POFA 2012 (Exhibit AH12), there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land, nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name the driver.

10. I wish to draw your attention to Barrister and POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) Lead Adjudicator’s Henry Greenslade’s words in the 2015 POPLA Annual report. - “However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (Exhibit AH13).

11. I received a Letter Before Claim dated the xxth xxx 2016 from Gladstones (Exhibit AH14) regarding the outstanding PCN, number nnnnnn.

12. I received a letter dated xxth xxx 2016 from Gladstones with Particulars of Claim enclosed (Exhibit AH15).

13. On the xth xxx 2017 I submitted a Part 18 request for further and better particulars to Gladstones via email (Exhibit AH16). The request was designed to obtain the sort of information that should have been provided at the pre-action phase under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, and which should have been contained in the Particulars of Claim - its purpose was so that I could understand the claim, try to narrow the issues, to take stock of my position and defend it appropriately. Instead, I have had to second guess how the claim is being pursued and what it is based on, whereas I should have known this and had sight of the core documents well before now. The request was not responded to.

14. On the xth xxx 2017 I submitted a Subject Access Request to the Claimant requesting any data held about me (Exhibit AH17). As above, this was to solicit information to help me defend the claim against me.

15. On the xxth xxx 2017 I submitted my initial defence (Exhibit AH1) so as to comply with the time constraints.

16. I filed my directions questionnaire on the County Court business Centre (CCBC) and Gladstones on the xnd xxx 2017.

17. On the xxth xxx 2017 I received a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track.

18. On the xth xxx 2017 I sent a letter to the Claimant requesting a response to the Subject Access Request as the 40 day deadline had passed (Exhibit AH18). No response was received.

19. On the xxth xxx 2017 I made a complaint to the ICO about the lack of response from the claimant to my Subject Access Request. The Claimant has failed their obligation as a data controller.


I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true

• Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Tenancy trumps signage)
• Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (Tenancy trumps signage)
• Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14FO 16/9/2016 (Tenancy trumps signage)
• Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] (Tenancy trumps signage)
• B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B (forbidding signage)

• B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W (forbidding signage)
• B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L (forbidding signage)