Gladstones claim form

Coupon-mad

But that's not the Template Defence thread! 

  

ignoredletterdotcom

Coupon-mad said:

You could simply have the Template Defence thread open and do control & f on a laptop for the word Gladstones.

But I think it's clear and obvious anyway when reading that thread. It's linked twice.

This is what I have copied and added a few lines;

 

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

The car was rented out many times in this period and I had seen a letter once which I replied to with the drivers details and since I had never heard back from them.

if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA, add that fact.

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. 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'.

9. 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.

10. 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))'.

 

Coupon-mad

But that's not the Gladstones one specially explained and linked twice in the TD tgread.

ignoredletterdotcom

Coupon-mad said:

But that's not the Gladstones one soecially explained and linked twice in the TD tgread.

Oh ok, can you help me find it I tried searching it on the main page and thats all I can find I been trying throughout the day, I think its my last day tomorrow to submit it

1505grandad

Does the contract (signs) and the NTK state the parking charge as £100?  -  if so should you not be referencing that the PoC claim is for the incorrect sum of £110?:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81637899/#Comment_81637899

Nellymoser

I think the 2 links in the Template defence for Gladstones claims show paragraph 3.

Coupon-mad

Nellymoser said:

I think the 2 links in the Template defence for Gladstones claims show paragraph 3.

Yes I think you are right but the OP hasn't used it yet. Just needs this point adding to the Chan and Akande para 3:

Does the contract (signs) and the NTK state the parking charge as £100?  -  if so should you not be referencing that the PoC claim is for the incorrect sum of £110?:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81637899/#Comment_81637899

Another great spot  @1505grandad

Claimant is PPM

Nellymoser

The OP was possibly searching thinking there was a whole different defence template for Gladstones claims.

Is the Claim form 

Euro Parking Services via Gladstones?

1505grandad

Nellymoser said:

I think the 2 links in the Template defence for Gladstones claims show paragraph 3.

Unless I am misreading the Template Defence states:-

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

When the link is used it takes you to the following which does not appear to include incorrect PoC claim amount:-

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Le_Kirk

ignoredletterdotcom said:

Coupon-mad said:

But that's not the Gladstones one specially explained and linked twice in the TD thread tgread.

Oh ok, can you help me find it I tried searching it on the main page and that's all I can find I been trying throughout the day, I think its my last day tomorrow to submit it

I remind you of my post here 11 September at 10:53AM when did you complete the AoS?