No blue badge at Primark Lakeside

bobbstar21

Does this look ok now?

Gr1pr

So, it's Premier Park Ltd,  via Gladstones 

Dont forget to add numbered Exhibits to your bundle,  add the numbering to your WS to reference them, so if your name is Yogi Bear they would be YB1 , YB2 , YB3 etc

Your Witness Statement talks about your wife having a blue badge and that a complaint was made to the landowner with no reply 

However,  it does not specify if it was in view in the vehicle on the incident date , even though a blue badge is only an indicator that an occupant of the vehicle requires use of the bay

Plus its the law that really applied on that day, namely the Equality Act 2010 which is the legal entitlement to use the marked disabled bay, but not mentioned in the WS  !

So I suggest a rework of certain sections plus adding details of the Exhibits,  judgments,  copies of the badge etc

bobbstar21

I will add the exhibits and other documents separately

---

1. Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out
   
   I respectfully bring to the courts attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Joshua Reid of Gladstone’s Solicitors, is hearsay from a third party office junior. It fails to comply with the Judge’s order which requires statements from the parties, and 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. Gladstones is not a ‘party’. Joshua Reid is not a witness, will not attend the hearing, and does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, 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.
   
   

2. I also draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators 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 using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities.
   
   

3. The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 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'. (See Exhibit AK1)
   
   

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande(Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. (See Exhibit AK2)
   
   

5. 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.
   
   

6. The PoCs lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. In fact, the present PoCs are even less detailed than those struck out in Chan and Akande, offering no factual basis for a cause of action.
   
   

Facts and Sequence of events

1. It is admitted that on the material date 27th November 2023, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle. My family and I were shopping at Lakeside shopping centre where parking is free.
   
   

2. My wife - who was an occupant of the car - is and was a holder of a valid blue badge (see Exhibit AK3). She has stage 4 metastatic lung cancer with spread to multiple areas including her lower spine, imparing her mobility.
   
   

3. There was no blue badge in view in the vehicle on the incident date as signage - or lack thereof - did not suggest there needed to be. 
   
   

4. My family and I were away from 2nd November 2023 to 25th November 2023. I contacted the landowner on 25th November 2023 in response to the parking charge (see Exhibit AK4) - I explained that my wife is a blue badge holder with stage 4 lung cancer and provided a copy of her valid blue badge however there was no response.
    

5. When I tried to appeal the claim on 3rd December 2023, the online portal showed the message “This PCN has been transferred to our debt recovery agent". The claimant has been quick to move this to debt recovery and did not provide sufficient time to appeal this.

Equality Act 2010 and Reasonable Adjustments

1. The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on service providers - including private parking operators - to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals. This includes not imposing penalties where a person’s disability is clearly established and where signage is inadequate or unclear. Despite mentioning this to the landowner, they did not respond.
   
   

2. My wife’s disability is well-documented, and she was entitled to use the bay. Penalising her for non-display, when the requirement to display was not clearly signposted, amounts to a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Once I provided evidence of her condition and entitlement, the charge should have been cancelled.

Inadequate Signage and Markings

1. The claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled parking in a free to park carpark at the Lakeside Shopping Centre without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge.
   
   

2. The claimant does not provide any evidence of clear signage in view of the vehicle. Exhibit GS-4 on page 35 provided by the claimant is a photograph of a sign with parking conditions on a wall but this is a close up of the sign and it cannot be determined where this sign actually is. Given that this is a close up, the photograph is still difficult to read. Exhibit GS-4 on page 23 and 24 provided by the claimant also demonstrates the poor wall lighting.
   
   

3. Joshua Reid of Gladstones Solicitors Limited mentions in paragraph 9 that the claimant manages and enforces private parking at the land located at SITE 1. The original parking charge notice in Exhibit GS-5 provided by the claimant also mentions a breach of terms and conditions of parking at SITE 1. However, in Exhibit GS-3 provided by the claimant, the maps make no reference of SITE 1 or its parking terms and conditions.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

1. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
   
   
2. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).
   
   
3. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.
   
   
4. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.
   
   
5. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.
   
   
6. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.
   
   
7. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Le_Kirk

Can I suggest that you renumber it using sequential numbering, else it could become confusing when, at a hearing, you direct the judge to (say) paragraph 5 and the judge says "which one?"

Coupon-mad

I'd remove paragraph 3.

bobbstar21

Le_Kirk said:

Can I suggest that you renumber it using sequential numbering, else it could become confusing when, at a hearing, you direct the judge to (say) paragraph 5 and the judge says "which one?"

It's just pasting funny here but in my doc it's numbered properly.

Ok will remove para 3

Coupon-mad

Eek - get rid of the greengrocer's apostrophe:

Gladstone’s 

bobbstar21

Hopefully my last try!

--

1. Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out
   
   I respectfully bring to the courts attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Joshua Reid of Gladstones Solicitors, is hearsay from a third party office junior. It fails to comply with the Judge’s order which requires statements from the parties, and 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. Gladstones is not a ‘party’. Joshua Reid is not a witness, will not attend the hearing, and does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, 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.
   
   

2. I also draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators 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 using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities.
   
   

3. The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 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'. (See Exhibit AK1)
   
   

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. (See Exhibit AK2)
   
   

5. 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.
   
   

6. The PoCs lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. In fact, the present PoCs are even less detailed than those struck out in Chan and Akande, offering no factual basis for a cause of action.
   
   

Facts and Sequence of events

1. It is admitted that on the material date 27th November 2023, I was the registered keeper of the vehicle. My family and I were shopping at Lakeside shopping centre where parking is free.
   
   

2. My wife - who was an occupant of the car - is and was a holder of a valid blue badge (see Exhibit AK3). She has stage 4 metastatic lung cancer with spread to multiple areas including her lower spine, imparing her mobility.
   
   

3. My family and I were away from 2nd November 2023 to 25th November 2023. I contacted the landowner on 25th November 2023 in response to the parking charge (see Exhibit AK4) - I explained that my wife is a blue badge holder with stage 4 lung cancer and provided a copy of her valid blue badge however there was no response.
    

4. When I tried to appeal the claim on 3rd December 2023, the online portal showed the message “This PCN has been transferred to our debt recovery agent". The claimant has been quick to move this to debt recovery and did not provide sufficient time to appeal this.

Equality Act 2010 and Reasonable Adjustments

1. The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on service providers - including private parking operators - to make reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals. This includes not imposing penalties where a person’s disability is clearly established and where signage is inadequate or unclear. Despite mentioning this to the landowner (see Exhibit AK4), they did not respond.

2. My wife’s disability is well-documented, and she was entitled to use the bay. Penalising her for non-display, when the requirement to display was not clearly signposted, amounts to a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Once I provided evidence of her condition and entitlement, the charge should have been cancelled.

Inadequate Signage and Markings

1. The claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled parking in a free to park carpark at the Lakeside Shopping Centre without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge.
   
   

2. The claimant does not provide any evidence of clear signage in view of the vehicle. Exhibit GS-4 on page 35 provided by the claimant is a photograph of a sign with parking conditions on a wall but this is a close up of the sign and it cannot be determined where this sign actually is. Given that this is a close up, the photograph is still difficult to read. Exhibit GS-4 on page 23 and 24 provided by the claimant also demonstrates the poor wall lighting.
   
   

3. Joshua Reid of Gladstones Solicitors Limited mentions in paragraph 9 that the claimant manages and enforces private parking at the land located at SITE 1. The original parking charge notice in Exhibit GS-5 provided by the claimant also mentions a breach of terms and conditions of parking at SITE 1. However, in Exhibit GS-3 provided by the claimant, the maps make no reference of SITE 1 or its parking terms and conditions.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

1. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
   
   
2. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).
   
   
3. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.
   
   
4. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.
   
   
5. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.
   
   
6. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.
   
   
7. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

bobbstar21

Thanks everyone, really appreciate the help.

Can I just check what email I should be sending this to for the court? The court is Romford county court.

Gr1pr

What does their website say   ?  Or their paperwork   ? , try courtfinder 

It might come under a central London processing office