Claim Form | Gladstones | Premier Park Ltd - assistance required

AxelMoney

CPR 18 request primed and ready to be dispatched to Gladstones tomorrow.

Putting up my WS for review later.  Not particularly inspired by it so far.

AxelMoney

Do Gladstone et al monitor these forums?  Is there a risk of 'doxxing' your claim as i put in my WS for feedback later?

Coupon-mad

No.            

AxelMoney

WS is an amalgamation of others.  Please advise on the length, sufficient use of Chan? The sequencing of points and general structure?  Thanks.

AxelMoney

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3. As a preliminary matter, I would like to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by xxx  xxx of Gladstone Solicitors Ltd, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. As xx xxxx does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this noncompliance, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

 

4. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority

5. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the CEL vs Chan judgment followed by many other cases where District Judges have taken the same view, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (See Exhibit 01).

 6. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. 

Background

7. The defendant visited The Priory Shopping Centre car park, Instone Road, Dartford on two occasions (14 July ’22 & 3 Aug ’22) and in two different vehicles.

8.  No prominent signage was noticed at the entrance of the car park.

9.  On both occasions the duration of the stay was approximately 43 minutes (3rd Aug ’22) and 15 minutes (14th July ’22) respectively.

Poor Signage

10. As shown by the claimants own evidence (Exhibit GS-3) the claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and positioned above head height.  Parking meters were inadequately maintained. Car parking signs were damaged and posted too high. 

11. Lettering on signs were of mixed font and sizing making them extremely difficult to read; important contractual information being especially small and illegible. Photo evidence supplied with the Claimants WS (p28) shows signage located in the multi-story carpark, when the alleged contravention took place at surface level. 

Unreasonable Charge(s)

12.  For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award me such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charges of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form for each claim is inexplicably circa £200 plus, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

13. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

14.  At the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v Anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (Exhibit 2) [Photo of this judgement used]

15. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (Exhibit 3) [Photo of this judgement used]

16. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lack of clarity, detail, and precision.

17. This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

18. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: 

Link will placed here 

"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

19. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'.

20. Gladstones indisputably issue tens of thousands of inflated parking claims every year and the unconscionably enhanced £60 or £70 (per PCN) which can add hundreds to some claims. Given that the MoJ's quarterly statistics show that 90% of small claims go to default CCJs, this is clearly an abuse, and it appears to be for the profit of Gladstones and nothing to do with the Claimant's alleged £100 PCN. I hope the Judge addresses this in the final judgment, at the very least to warn or sanction Gladstones as the court sees fit. 

Conclusion

21. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant. 

22. There is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale. 

23.  In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks: (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and (b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

Coupon-mad

You can remove these because your Exhibit 1 should be the multiple judgments link in the thread by @Le_Kirk  posted just last month:

14.  At the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v Anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (Exhibit 2) [Photo of this judgement used]

15. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (Exhibit 3) [Photo of this judgement used]

16. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lack of clarity, detail, and precision. 

AxelMoney

Thank you

Including one single link for the judgements streamlines the doc and makes it easier for the reader.

Should the background section be ‘beefed’ up? Think it’s too sparse.

Coupon-mad

What's the allegation? It's a Supermarket so why couldn't Dad park there without a scam PCN?

Don't use the third party phrase "The defendant visited" in a WS.  Change to "I visited" and similarly for anywhere else that says 'The Defendant did this/that'.

I'd improve this para as shown:

8.  No signage was noticed at the entrance to the parking area and I did not use the multi-storey car park so I could not possibly be bound by signs within there. The fact that signs were not seen at surface level suggests to me (and I take this point in support of my defence) that the signs and any terms were inadequate and certainly not prominent. If they had been, and if the Claimants had put a ticket on my car or posted the Notice to Keeper swiftly, I would not have returned to the Supermarket and done the exact same thing, weeks later.

AxelMoney

Turns out PP took over the running of the supermarket carpark from Apcoa.

They rescinded a hour of free parking to customers as per the prior arrangement and began profiteering.

Dad no doubt has been caught out by the change of parking rules (without warning).  And countless others as evidenced by a local facebook group bemoaning the unfair charges and fines. Censure in the local paper too. 

Could this be made into another WS point?

Coupon-mad

Yes. Find the clause in the BPA CoP about changes in restrictions and the requirement to put up EXTRA signs when things change, to alert people used to the old rules, who have no reasonable requirement to look at signs or terms they are content that they are familiar with.

Add that clause and a link to the CoP from the year of parking.