Claim Form | Gladstones | Premier Park Ltd - assistance required

AxelMoney

Any reference to be made to the negative reportage?  Social media and local paper.

Coupon-mad

Search for a reporter who reports on such things and get in touch with them by email.

AxelMoney

WS with amendments in the next post. 

- reduced use of the 3d person ‘the defendant’.

- para 8 fleshed out.

-para 9 uses 3.4 material changes clause from BPA code of practice.

AxelMoney

3. As a preliminary matter, I would like to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by xxxx 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, I respectfully request 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. I would like to draw 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). I believe 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

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&e=1&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0

 6. I believe 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. I 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 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.

9.  In addition there were not additional (temporary) notices that alerted me to a change to pre-existing terms and conditions.  This is clearly stipulated in clause 3.4 within the private parking sector single Code of Practice published by the BPA (British Parking Association) and the IPC (International Parking Community) In June 2024.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1260624.pdf

10.  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 either 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, I aver 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. 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.

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

16. 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'.

17. 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

18. 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 mine.   

19. 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. I believe 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. 

20.  In the matter of costs, I ask: (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.

AxelMoney

@Coupon-mad; @LDast - hi both, appreciate any further feedback on the WS iteration above. 

Coupon-mad

Re para 3
Check your Hearing Order. If it states that 'the parties' must file and serve a Witness Statement then add to this paragraph that the Hearing Order has been breached because a third party solicitor is not a 'party to the case' and paragraph x of the Hearing Order required BLAH BLAH (...quote it). 


Re para 9
Wrong dated Code of Practice for your case.


Re para 16
You mention there that the Government's Impact Assessment in 2023 has "exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'."

But this is no good without saying what those facts are. The Judge will not know!

You haven't used any of the subsequent (usual) paragraphs - seen in the Template Defence - which tell the Judge that 'debt recovery letters stage' actually costs no more than £8.50; a minuscule and nominal sum that is easily absorbed by - and arguably helps justify - the full £100 parking charge (as opposed to the early payment discounted charge).  And ... it isn't even charged to parking firms by DRAs, in reality, because the DRAs all operate on a 'no-win-no-fee' basis and clearly, they failed to recover the PCN sum, or the case wouldn't now be in court. So there are no fees or 'damages' incurred at all.

Even if there were, the £100 more than covers the costs of the operation, as confirmed in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis.*

* Here you add the usual exhibits too. Including the Beavis case standard quotes. You know, the stuff in that a-f list of Exhibits that I carefully put together for everyone in the second post of the NEWBIES thread where I explain WS stage and evidence.

So far, all you are exhibiting is the Judgments link. What about the other standard evidence we coach people to include with their WS?

AxelMoney

Thanks will be incorporating these above points today.

AxelMoney

@Coupon-mad

Re para 3
Check your Hearing Order. If it states that 'the parties' must file and serve a Witness Statement then add to this paragraph that the Hearing Order has been breached because a third party solicitor is not a 'party to the case

The hearing directions don’t mention this in the most clear-cut way.

But states all documents ‘to be sent to the other party and the court must all include the statements of all witnesses (including the parties themselves’).  So the breach point can be included?

I presume I have to use an earlier version of the code of practice.  The requirement of temporarily signage is in para 18.10.  In V7 2018 COP.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/BPA_AOS_code_of_practice_version_7_January_2018.pdf

Castle

You'll need version 8 which covers the period from January 2020 to February 2024.

AxelMoney

Latest version of the WS (below) includes para 4 that refers to a breach of the hearing order.

Para 10 now references V8 (2020) of the code of practice.

Paras 19 to 25 as advised includes coverage of the debt recovery stage & the Beavis case.

My own evidence is limited.  The alleged contravention arose when the new operator of the carpark changed the terms & conditions that included the removal of time limited free parking.

Not sure what else to add.  Appreciate further guidance.  Thanks