We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Ukpmc gladstone claim form

ipm82
Posts: 4 Newbie
I’m so so sorry, I thought I did do a new thread! I will delete previous on other thread ASAP!
Please help
—-
Hi All,
Firstly, can i just thank you all for your time and amazing advice and work helping all us Newbies with these mind taxing claims
I spent the best part of 4 hours in the early hours yesterday, reading and trying to get my head around all the defences and am really reallllllly grateful this forum has been set up and there are amazing people like yourselves that give their own time to help.
Background.
We are a small business that was unloading/loading in what we now understand to be private land beneath a residential block of flats in South West London. Our driver did not see the signage of no parking inside the private estate. He stayed for approximately 10-15minutes collecting a heavily weighted box from one of the flats above.
We have no recollection of correspondence from this claim (the alleged offence took place in June 2017). We were shocked by the Claim Form received in the post yesterday.
I have written a defence, copying and pasting what i felt was relevant to our case and would be grateful if you would read and edit where necessary.
Thank you again,
----
In the county court
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD
V
Xxxxx
We assert that we are not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
(1) CLAIMANT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DRIVER
The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
ascertained.
The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. This vehicle is routinely used by more than one individual. The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver “The driver of the vehicle registration WN15DNX incurred the parking charge(s)…”.
The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper the opportunity at any point, to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no Notice to Keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012.
There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a 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 barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4. “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.”
The Defendant therefore 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. As a corporate body, the Defendant could not possibly have been the driver of the vehicle so cannot be held liable ‘as driver’ either. There is no possibility of vicarious liability by company name to the Claimant since there was no omission, contravention nor breach of contract by the driver.
(2) NO COPY OF WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR CLAIMANTS TO OPERATE AT THE SITE.
The Claimant has failed to include 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 which says;
“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. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions”.
(3) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM ARE UNCLEAR
The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. The Particulars of Claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). 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. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;
“1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example “Money owed £5000”,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant “.
(4) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM INSUFFICIENT TO FILE A DEFENCE
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt. The Claimant has stated that “the driver of the vehicle registration WN15DNX incurred the parking charge(s)”. 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 charge(s)” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
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. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
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’.
On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient 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.
(5) NON COMPLIANCE WITH PRE COURT PROTOCOL
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. There has been no correspondence received by the Defendants prior to the Claim Form being issued on 15 August 2018, for an alleged breach on 27 June 2017. There was no complaint Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction. There can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
The Claimants actions contradict the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
i. “Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided”.
(6) NO EVIDENCE
The allegation appears to be that the “driver breached the terms of parking on the land”. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked. The allegation of “breaching the terms of parking on the land” is open to abuse by Claimants as it can be used in all cases regardless of the actual situation, this displays how the claimants claim is completely generic and not specific.
(7) POOR SIGNAGE
The Defendant has visited the said car park as a result of this claim. It was noted that there is no signage at the entrances to the site from the main road and the signage within the car park is extremely poor. Any signage present is unreadable whilst driving. It is placed in locations where it is not obvious to the driver i.e. very small signage on a tree, high up on posts, not in line of sight. Therefore the signage on this site is inadequate to form any contract with the motorist.
This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been in the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs. In the absence of strict proof we submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant
Inadequate signs are incapable of binding the driver this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as compensation from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant
iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
v. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
BPA CoP breaches this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract
(8) LOADING/UNLOADING
8.1 The driver was allowed the right to load/unload by one of the residents of Riverside Quarter.
8.2 This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.
8.3 Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’.
8.3.(i) In the Jopson appeal in June 2016, the Senior Circuit Judge found that the position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in that case was: ‘;To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles ’for the purposes of obtaining access to the building ‘known as the auction mart.''
8.3.(ii) In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.
8.3.(iii) In the Jopson appeal it was held that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 had no application to a situation involving drivers with a right and expectation to be entitled to park under the grants flowing from a lease.
8.4.(iv) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.
8.5 The reason for the Claimant’s presence on this site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholders of Riverside Quarter. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.
(9) CLAIMANT NOT LAWFUL OCCUPIER OF THE LAND
The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land. We have reason to believe that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
9.1 The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
9.2. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
9.3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.
(10) CLAIMANT INFLATED COSTS
10.1 The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
10.2 The charge of £248.48 is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
10.3 The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to a total of £248.48. The defendant submits that the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their roboclaim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. Gladstones Solicitors Limited appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.
(11) MERITLESS CLAIMS
The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).
12. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.
13. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.
We confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of our knowledge and recollection.
Name-Sign-Date
Please help

—-
Hi All,
Firstly, can i just thank you all for your time and amazing advice and work helping all us Newbies with these mind taxing claims
I spent the best part of 4 hours in the early hours yesterday, reading and trying to get my head around all the defences and am really reallllllly grateful this forum has been set up and there are amazing people like yourselves that give their own time to help.
Background.
We are a small business that was unloading/loading in what we now understand to be private land beneath a residential block of flats in South West London. Our driver did not see the signage of no parking inside the private estate. He stayed for approximately 10-15minutes collecting a heavily weighted box from one of the flats above.
We have no recollection of correspondence from this claim (the alleged offence took place in June 2017). We were shocked by the Claim Form received in the post yesterday.
I have written a defence, copying and pasting what i felt was relevant to our case and would be grateful if you would read and edit where necessary.
Thank you again,
----
In the county court
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD
V
Xxxxx
We assert that we are not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
(1) CLAIMANT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE DRIVER
The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
ascertained.
The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. This vehicle is routinely used by more than one individual. The claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver “The driver of the vehicle registration WN15DNX incurred the parking charge(s)…”.
The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper the opportunity at any point, to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no Notice to Keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012.
There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a 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 barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4. “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.”
The Defendant therefore 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. As a corporate body, the Defendant could not possibly have been the driver of the vehicle so cannot be held liable ‘as driver’ either. There is no possibility of vicarious liability by company name to the Claimant since there was no omission, contravention nor breach of contract by the driver.
(2) NO COPY OF WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR CLAIMANTS TO OPERATE AT THE SITE.
The Claimant has failed to include 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 which says;
“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. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions”.
(3) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM ARE UNCLEAR
The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. The Particulars of Claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). 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. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;
“1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example “Money owed £5000”,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant “.
(4) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM INSUFFICIENT TO FILE A DEFENCE
The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt. The Claimant has stated that “the driver of the vehicle registration WN15DNX incurred the parking charge(s)”. 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 charge(s)” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
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. The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
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’.
On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient 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.
(5) NON COMPLIANCE WITH PRE COURT PROTOCOL
The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. There has been no correspondence received by the Defendants prior to the Claim Form being issued on 15 August 2018, for an alleged breach on 27 June 2017. There was no complaint Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction. There can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the Pre-action Conduct process, bearing in mind that the Claim was issued by their own Solicitors so they clearly had legal advice before issuing proceedings.
The Claimants actions contradict the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
i. “Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided”.
(6) NO EVIDENCE
The allegation appears to be that the “driver breached the terms of parking on the land”. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked. The allegation of “breaching the terms of parking on the land” is open to abuse by Claimants as it can be used in all cases regardless of the actual situation, this displays how the claimants claim is completely generic and not specific.
(7) POOR SIGNAGE
The Defendant has visited the said car park as a result of this claim. It was noted that there is no signage at the entrances to the site from the main road and the signage within the car park is extremely poor. Any signage present is unreadable whilst driving. It is placed in locations where it is not obvious to the driver i.e. very small signage on a tree, high up on posts, not in line of sight. Therefore the signage on this site is inadequate to form any contract with the motorist.
This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been in the absence of any proof of adequate signage contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case. The Claimant is put to strict proof at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs. In the absence of strict proof we submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant
Inadequate signs are incapable of binding the driver this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum
ii. It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as compensation from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
iii. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant
iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
v. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
BPA CoP breaches this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
i. The signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract
(8) LOADING/UNLOADING
8.1 The driver was allowed the right to load/unload by one of the residents of Riverside Quarter.
8.2 This permission created the prevailing and overriding contract - the only contract - and the business was concluded as agreed, at no cost or penalty.
8.3 Loading or unloading with the permission of the landholder is not 'parking' and signs cannot override existing rights enjoyed by landowners and their visitors, as was found in the Appeal case decided by His Honour Judge Harris QC at Oxford County Court, in case number B9GF0A9E: 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’.
8.3.(i) In the Jopson appeal in June 2016, the Senior Circuit Judge found that the position was analogous to the right to unload which was the subject of Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 2 All ER 728. The right of way in that case was: ‘;To pass and re-pass with or without vehicles ’for the purposes of obtaining access to the building ‘known as the auction mart.''
8.3.(ii) In the Jopson appeal it was also held as a finding of fact, that stopping to unload was not 'parking'.
8.3.(iii) In the Jopson appeal it was held that ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 had no application to a situation involving drivers with a right and expectation to be entitled to park under the grants flowing from a lease.
8.4.(iv) In the Jopson appeal it was also held that signs added later by a third party parking firm are of no consequence to authorised visitors to premises where other rights prevail and supersede any alleged new 'parking contract’.
8.5 The reason for the Claimant’s presence on this site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholders of Riverside Quarter. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.
(9) CLAIMANT NOT LAWFUL OCCUPIER OF THE LAND
The Claimant is not the lawful occupier of the land. We have reason to believe that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
9.1 The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
9.2. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
9.3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.
(10) CLAIMANT INFLATED COSTS
10.1 The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.
10.2 The charge of £248.48 is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.
10.3 The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim from £100 to a total of £248.48. The defendant submits that the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their roboclaim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. Gladstones Solicitors Limited appear to be in contravention of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct.
(11) MERITLESS CLAIMS
The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).
12. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.
13. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.
We confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of our knowledge and recollection.
Name-Sign-Date
0
Comments
-
Stop for a moment and read the case of Jopson v Homeguard. This is a loading/unloading case too.
Your client, which I presume is a resident will have rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property, which includes having people deliver e.g. postman / milkman. Your driver was fulfilling a requirement covered by the resident's rights.
So ticketing people like your driver (which you do not name) is a) an interference and b) have no legitimate interest.
The defence can be stripped right down to
a. No driver identiied
b. No legitimate interest
c. Interference with the client's lease
d. Interference with the contract between you and your client.
The Jopson case explains. So do a search of the board using that term
Have some pity on the poor judges that have to read these and have a look at this alternative template to see how you can reduce defences to about 10 simple paragraphs rather than a "pray and spray" one.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5882434/gladstones-claim-form-received&page=2#24This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Jopson v Homeguard transcript linked below - from the Parking Prankster's More Case Law webpage (CS038)
http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.htmlPlease note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Thank you so much!0
-
Hi All,
Thank you again so much for your help. Kindly check my amended version.
Thanks,
---
IN THE COUNTY COURT XXX
CLAIM No: XXX
BETWEEN:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, attended the address of the alleged breach Riverside Quarter ANPR Riverside Quarter Eastfields Avenue London SW18 1FQ ("Address") to collect a box from a client who is a resident at one of the apartments at this Address. It is unclear as to what terms of parking was breached, as the Defendants have not received any correspondence from the Claimant at any point until the issuance of this Claim Form.
3. The Claimant has failed to issue a Letter Before Action, or provided any evidence or details of the claim prior to issuing a claim at court. As such, the Claimant has failed to comply with the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols, para 6 (a) & (c).
4. The Particulars of Claim state that “the Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle”. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16, 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper the opportunity at any point, to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no Notice to Keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012.
There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a 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 barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4. “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.”
The Defendant therefore 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. As a corporate body, the Defendant could not possibly have been the driver of the vehicle so cannot be held liable ‘as driver’ either. There is no possibility of vicarious liability by company name to the Claimant since there was no omission, contravention nor breach of contract by the driver.
5. The Defendant’s client has a right to unload as an ancillary to the easement to pass or repass onto her property. Their client has a right to peaceful enjoyment of their property, which includes having people deliver e.g. postman / milkman. The driver was fulfilling a requirement covered by the resident’s rights.
Judge Harris points out in 'JOPSON V HOME GUARD SERVICES’ case that delivery drivers (i.e. milkman/ wine merchant/ retail supplier etc) delivering to a leaseholder, whilst delivering their goods would not be “parked”. Otherwise it would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable.
Ticketing people like delivery drivers are an interference with the Defendant’s client’s lease, an interference with the contract between the Defendant and their client and has no legitimate interest.
6. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
7. The Claimant’s representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Limited, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim to a total of £248.48. The Defendant submits that the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts, as part of their roboclaim litigation model, in an attempt at double recovery, circumventing the Small Claims costs rules. The claim includes an additional £50 for ‘Legal representative’s costs’, such costs are not permissible under Civil Procedure Rules – Part 27.
.
8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date0 -
Looks good, just needs all paragraphs numbered, or split-numbered, e.g. if you have several paras under point #4, then they need to be numbered 4.1. then 4.2. etc.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
thanks so much! will make amendments and send off x0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards