Claim Form | Gladstones | Premier Park Ltd - assistance required

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.  Furthermore this claimant is also in breach of the hearing order.  The directions to this claim state ‘that documents to be sent to the other party must include statements of all witnesses (including the parties themselves).  Gladstone Solicitors Ltd are not a ‘party to the case’.

5. 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

6. 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

 7. 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

8. 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.

9.   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.

10.  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 19.10 within the private parking sector single Code of Practice published by the BPA (British Parking Association) in Jan 2020.

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

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

Poor Signage

12. 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. 

13. 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)

14.  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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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."

18. 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'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

19.  Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

20.  This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

21.The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the  fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

22. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

23. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

24. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

25. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

26. 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. 

1505grandad

"15. 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."

Is that already stated in para 14?

AxelMoney

Yes it has.  Will remove the duplication in para 15. 

Coupon-mad

Para 10 needs to explain why this car park needed those extra signs. I don't think you've told the Judge about the new restrictions/new operator and that unknown change is what caught the driver out.

Le_Kirk

10.  In addition there were not no additional (temporary) notices that alerted me to a change to pre-existing terms and conditions.  This is clearly stipulated in clause 19.10 within the private parking sector single Code of Practice published by the BPA (British Parking Association) in Jan 2020.

Suggestion above.                           

LDast

Is this a defence or a WS? Some is written in the third person and some in the first. OP needs to make mind up which it is.

AxelMoney

New para 10 below.

The 2020 COP no longer mentions the guidance to use temporary signage for a period of 4 months when parking restrictions change?

10.  In addition there were not additional (temporary) notices that alerted me to a change to pre-existing terms and conditions.  This is stipulated in clause 19.10 within the private parking sector single Code of Practice published by the BPA (British Parking Association) in Jan 2020.   This claimant took over the running of the parking location in May 2022.  There was a clear need for the installation of additional/temporary signage throughout the site.  The alleged contraventions occurred shortly after the claimant took over management of the parking site.   Being a regular visitor I was unaware new terms and condition had been instituted.  I would contend the claimant did not follow the suggested guidance outlined in the 2020 code of practice.

Le_Kirk

AxelMoney said:

10.  In addition there were not no additional (temporary) notices that alerted me to a change to pre-existing terms and conditions.  This is stipulated in clause 19.10 within the private parking sector single Code of Practice published by the BPA (British Parking Association) in Jan 2020.   This claimant took over the running of the parking location in May 2022.  There was a clear need for the installation of additional/temporary signage throughout the site.  The alleged contraventions occurred shortly after the claimant took over management of the parking site.   Being a regular visitor I was unaware that new terms and condition had been instituted.  I would contend the claimant that did not follow the suggested guidance outlined in the 2020 code of practice.

Also see my earlier post here 12 July at 10:56AM.  If it is in their COP surely it is mandatory not suggested?

AxelMoney

Thanks for the feedback all.  Now finalising the latest version of the WS.

On a separate but related matter, how will I know if Gladstone pay the court fee tomorrow?

I’m kinda hoping they forget/decide not to proceed & I get a reprieve.

Gr1pr

You phone the court, say on Tuesday or definitely later this week, its that simple, as an LiP you are conducting your own case, so its your job as an unrepresented LiP to liaise with all parties