Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 6th Jan 17, 9:57 AM
    • 37Posts
    • 21Thanks
    Gladstones CCC - UKCPM
    • #1
    • 6th Jan 17, 9:57 AM
    Gladstones CCC - UKCPM 6th Jan 17 at 9:57 AM
    Hi all, I've got a thread running on PePiPoo (same username), but thought a fresh set of eyes might help regarding my situation. Two heads are better than one, so to speak.

    I received a county court claim form from Gladstones last week. I've acknowledged the claim online and have created a draft defence. Here's some background:

    Car was parked in a visitors space on the estate I live and was ticketed by UK Car Park Management LTD at 9:43pm on 6th March.
    The reason for the ticket was given as Overstay.

    No sign was available in the visitors parking area. There are signs on the entrance and around the estate. Signs have since been updated to include wording about the visitors spaces:


    The signs also have the BPA Approved Operator logo on, when the BPA have stated they're only corporate members'. Parking control started by UKCPM sometime in 2013, apparently to stop residents using the visitors spaces. I moved into the estate in 2015.

    The lease states: "Not to use the Visitors Parking Spaces other than for the temporary parking of vehicles belonging to visitors attending at the Property."

    Notice to Keeper was received, dated 7th April. Incorrectly ignored. I mistakenly thought there was little point in appealing to the IPC/IAS and their kangaroo court!

    Many DRP letters received and ignored.

    Letter Before Claim from Gladstones received on 14th November with scant detail and a request to pay £139.

    County court claim form received on 30th December. Acknowledged on MCOL. Part 18 request emailed yesterday.

    Particulars of Claim:
    The driver of vehicle registration ******* (the 'Vehicle') incurred the parking charge(s) on 06/03/2016 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at The Grange xxxx

    The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS £139 for Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £7.96 pursuant to s69 of the Count Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgement at 0p per day.

    Amount claimed: 146.96
    Court fee: 25.00
    Legal representative's costs: 50.00
    Total amount: 221.96

    Here's my draft defence:






    1) It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

    2) 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.

    3) The Defendant has prepared the defence on the presumption that the alleged parking contravention is in reference to an occasion whereby the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in an allocated leasehold residential parking space at the home address of the Defendant.

    4) The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the authority to bring a claim. The Claimant does not own the land where the vehicle was parked, nor does he have any interest in the land. He therefore lacks the capacity to offer parking.

    a) The Claimant has failed to provide strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant which show that they have a right to unilaterally remove or interfere with the overriding rights conferred in the Lease.

    b) Alternatively, even if a contract could be established, the provision requiring payment of £139.00 is an unenforceable penalty clause and an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    5) The Defendant believes that his personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant and asks that the Court does not to assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur action).

    6) The Defendant has no liability as they are the keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

    a) The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

    b) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is the keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and the barrister, Henry Gleenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of ‘keeper liability’ as set out in Schedule 4.

    7) The Particulars of Claim do not give any reasons why the Claimant requires a payment other than it results from the ‘Parking Rules’ on the signage. It is a forbidding sign that cannot create 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.

    8) The presence of the Claimant on the land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead a predatory operation has been carried out on those very people whose interests the Claimant was purportedly there to uphold.

    a) The vehicle was parked on land in accordance with the terms of the Lease.

    9) In the case of Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 parking restrictions and a change which caused detriment to tenants and their visitors were held to be in breach of the well-known and well established principle that ‘a grantor shall not derogate from his grant’

    10) This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA(CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    a) In Beavis it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other ‘legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question’. The true test was held to be ‘whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest […..] in enforcement of the primary obligation’

    b) There can be no ‘legitimate interest’ in penalising residents or their visitors for using parking spaces, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly and as far as the landowner is concerned, the parking firm is contracted for the benefit of the residents. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith and ‘out of all proportion to any legitimate interest’ to fine residents or their visitors for using allocated parking spaces.

    11) The exact question regarding terms in a lease was tested recently at Oxford County Court, JOPSON v HOME GUARD SERVICES, Appeal case number B9GF0A9E on 29/9/2016. I will include the transcript of that case at any hearing.

    a) The Jopson Appeal case is a persuasive Appeal decision, 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.

    12) The Defendant also relies upon the Croydon Court decision in Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14FO 16/9/2016, where District Judge Coonan dismissed the claim and refused leave to appeal, having found that a third party parking firm cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.

    13) The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has incurred solicitors costs of £50 to prepare the claim. The Defendant refers the Court to the incompetent Particulars of Claim that disclose neither the basis for the claim nor a definite cause of action.

    14) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

    15) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

    16) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

    17) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

    18) I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

    Could anything be added or taken out to make this as strong a defence as possible?

    Thanks in advance
Page 4
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 13th Mar 17, 6:30 AM
    • 392 Posts
    • 588 Thanks
    It's good to have it all ready to avoid the stress of a last minute rush, but serve it on the day you are supposed to. Are you against Gladstones? In my case they served theirs early and this seems to be the case for others as well. But that's up to them. Don't serve yours early. You can deal with any points they raise then as well.
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 13th Mar 17, 6:35 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    Witness statement has to be in no later than middle of May. I don't really want to wait until then before seeing what they have.

    I'm still hoping this will be resolved before court
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 13th Mar 17, 8:50 AM
    • 392 Posts
    • 588 Thanks
    AOne, that's what I hoped for several weeks while all the experienced posters on here told me that however good my defence was, I could expect no sense from the PPC's solicitors.

    The point is this: the solicitors offer a really cheap service, they do no due diligence on the claim, they issue particulars of claim with no detail at all, neither do they bother to do what they should do before starting proceedings - all against the court rules.

    During the proceedings they do the same. Essentially, they just act as a post box receiving your stuff and churning out theirs. I don't actually think they read what they receive. Then a few days before the hearing they send the documents out to their chosen representative and the hearing goes ahead. Very rarely the PPC pulls out and I've never worked out why because there doesn't seem any rhyme or reason to it. It certainly doesn't seem to be because they have seen some killer point and think they will lose.

    Please don't think that serving your WS early is going to make a blind bit of difference. All it will do is give them a head start in rebutting your points.
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 13th Mar 17, 9:20 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    I've seen a few cases where they discontinue last minute and others where the judge dismisses the case in less than 10 minutes I think they'll have a hard time rebutting the lack of signage and the woefully inadequate terms that have been changed no less than 3 times in the last year. Saying that, I look forward to seeing them try.

    I was chatting to a neighbor that had just been ticketed and they were lamenting the fact the only reason the management company brought in the PPC was to stop residents parking in the 3 visitors bays. The estate has around 100 houses and there is a distinct lack of available parking and no other solution provided.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 13th Mar 17, 11:23 AM
    • 1,177 Posts
    • 1,521 Thanks
    Just to correct paragraph 6 of the Witness statement in posts 50 & 51; the IAS is not a subsidiary of the IPC, it's actually the same Company:-
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 13th Mar 17, 11:40 AM
    • 4,800 Posts
    • 5,914 Thanks
    Just to correct paragraph 6 of the Witness statement in posts 50 & 51; the IAS is not a subsidiary of the IPC, it's actually the same Company:-
    Originally posted by Castle
    And that page says ....

    The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) is a certified Alternative Dispute Resolution entity pursuant to the European Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) (2013/11/EU). It was created to provide a truly independent review on the lawfulness of parking charges that are imposed by private companies.

    CERTIFIED ??????

    More likely "certified" under the mental health act

    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 13th Mar 17, 11:50 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    And that page says ....

    The Independent Appeals Service (IAS) is a certified Alternative Dispute Resolution entity pursuant to the European Directive on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) (2013/11/EU). It was created to provide a truly independent review on the lawfulness of parking charges that are imposed by private companies.

    CERTIFIED ??????

    More likely "certified" under the mental health act
    Originally posted by beamerguy
    truly independant
    They're having one aren't they?
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 13th Mar 17, 11:56 AM
    • 1,823 Posts
    • 1,717 Thanks
    I know the IAS had temporary/interim certification as an ADR ... did they get full certification? If yes, HOW?
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 13th Mar 17, 12:23 PM
    • 392 Posts
    • 588 Thanks
    That makes jolly reading DoaM, 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Like the dozens of hours I've spent reading up and researching the murky world of PPCs.
    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 24th Mar 17, 9:46 AM
    • 37 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    Yesterday was the deadline for them to pay the court fee. So I ring the court this morning and was told they paid the fee on 9th March. The same day I got the court date letter lol

    Yesterday was also the deadline for them to reply to my SAR chaser. Nothing. Cheque still not cashed. Shows they've got their priorities in order.

    I'll be making a complaint to the ICO post haste.

    I've still got a while before I have to submit my WS. Is there any value\point in sending a strongly worded letter to Glad$tones urging them to discontinue or to the court requesting a strikeout?

    Thanks in advance.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 24th Mar 17, 11:10 AM
    • 392 Posts
    • 588 Thanks
    Is there any value\point in sending a strongly worded letter to Glad$tones urging them to discontinue or to the court requesting a strikeout?
    Originally posted by AOneVS
    Not really. You would think so, but they'll ignore it.

    I tried both approaches to Gladstones and asking the court to strike out using its inherent case management powers (as opposed to the Defendant making a formal application). Both of them ignored me!
    • richy4
    • By richy4 24th Mar 17, 1:33 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Hi, sorry to hijack the thread briefly, I'm in almost an identical situation to the original poster.

    (I'll shortly start my own thread separately).

    For now, I would just like to ask who/where you addressed your Subject Access Request to at UK CPM? I've tried calling them twice on their dodgy 0845 number but always get some voicemail. I don't want to end up wasting any more time or money(!) on this phone number, so did you simply use the address on their website, the Brighton one or the London one?

    • AOneVS
    • By AOneVS 24th Mar 17, 1:58 PM
    • 37 Posts
    • 21 Thanks
    Hi richy4, try the address for their data controller here -

    Good luck!
    • richy4
    • By richy4 24th Mar 17, 2:06 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    That's great, thank you. I had the Brighton address in mind as that was also what was on the court claim, but will readdress it to Lancing! Thanks again and good luck too, I'm rooting for you!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

258Posts Today

2,292Users online

Martin's Twitter