Court Claim Received from HX & Gladstones

Worzel_

Gladstones sent me their further POC today. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-0X-W_QdJIbnlx8xFG7tE1QXER6njRzk/view?usp=sharing

What is my next step, do I need to file an amended defence?





(Removed by Forum Team)

Le_Kirk

Item #4 on that judgment gives you the answer. 

Worzel_

Le_Kirk said:

Item #4 on that judgment gives you the answer. 

Yes so I guess I am asking for guidance on what if any changes I need to make to my original defence.

Original defence: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1__H8cyVC1V3B8zkT9aT5X9Kkmqyb3rEkBDOPLhd_a7w/edit?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

Up to you. Do you see a need to amend it?

Le_Kirk

As @Coupon-mad writes, is there anything you can add or amend that will strengthen your defence against the (amended) POC?  If so, do that but don't be tempted to write war and peace, that still goes in the WS.

Worzel_

My defence was written by @LDast ast and @Coupon-mad earlier in this thread. The defence is technical in nature and beyond me to have an opinion on.

Has their amended POC shot through the arguments in my original defence?

LDast

First Quick Look at the further PoC and I note at para 5 of the claimant which states:

5. The “regulations” (‘Terms and Conditions’) are displayed on signs erected by the Claimant at various points throughout out the Car Park. (Document 2) The Terms and Conditions of the Site, Inter alia, express the following conditions for any motorist using the Site:

“SPANISH CITY PLAZA PAYMENT MUST BE MADE USING EITHER THE PAYMENT TERMINAL OR RINGGO”.

"Document 2" is the evidence of their sign, which, if I'm not mistaken, does not even reference a £100 charge, or any charge for breach of any term:



If that is their "evidence" of a contractual sign... 

LDast

Luckily there are very up to date GSV images of the location which can be used to compare their claimed signage:

Worzel_

Thanks @LDast very helpful

I will ask a family member to take photos of their signage.

I also set the Gladstones "further POC" link to public: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-0X-W_QdJIbnlx8xFG7tE1QXER6njRzk/view?usp=sharing

LDast

I'd advise amending the defence to include something along the lines of the following:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the revised Particulars of Claim ('the PoC').

Preliminary matter:

1. The Defendant respectfully requests that the court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b). The Claimant has failed to fully comply with the court order dated 21 November 2024, which required the provision of clear and specific Particulars of Claim. 
2. While the Claimant has provided a revised PoC and included a redacted landholder agreement, the signage relied upon to establish the alleged contract fails to specify the £100 penalty charge or the additional costs of £60/£70. This omission undermines the Claimant's compliance with the court’s requirement to clarify the basis of their claim. The Claimant’s reliance on signage that does not specify these charges means there is no valid contractual basis for the claim. 
3. The Claimant has also failed to demonstrate compliance with Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), which requires adequate notice of the sum payable for unpaid parking charges and the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose.

Facts known to the Defendant 

1. The facts known to the Defendant come from their own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant’s PoC remains sparse and incoherent, failing to clearly specify the conduct that amounted to the alleged breach. The signage relied upon by the Claimant does not adequately display the £100 penalty charge or the additional £60/£70 costs. This renders the terms neither transparent nor prominently displayed, as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and established case law such as Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970]. Without these terms being clearly communicated, no contract was formed, and no breach could have occurred.
2. The Claimant’s signage is further distinguished from the signage in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], where clear and prominent notices were deemed sufficient to establish a contractual relationship. In this case, the absence of clear reference to the £100 penalty and additional charges means that the penalty rule remains engaged, rendering the charges unenforceable as they are disproportionate and punitive.
3. The Defendant notes that the Claimant included a redacted copy of the landholder agreement in their revised PoC. However, the redacted signatures make it impossible to verify whether the agreement was validly executed or binding on the parties. The Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that they have the necessary authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and pursue legal proceedings in their own name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the validity of the landholder agreement and the authority granted therein.
4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of PoFA. Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the sum payable and the circumstances giving rise to that sum. The signage relied upon by the Claimant does not display the £100 charge or explain the circumstances in which it applies. As such, the Notice to Keeper cannot be considered compliant with PoFA, and the Claimant cannot rely on keeper liability.
5. The inclusion of an additional £60 charge is disproportionate and constitutes an abuse of process. This charge is not referenced in the signage and therefore cannot form part of any alleged contract. Furthermore, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that this charge was genuinely incurred or necessary. It is submitted that the additional charge is an attempt to artificially inflate the claim, in contravention of the principles established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015].
6. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires that contractual terms must be both transparent and prominently displayed. The signage at the site fails to meet these requirements as it does not adequately display the £100 penalty charge or additional costs. These omissions render the terms unfair and unenforceable under the CRA 2015.
7. The Defendant denies that there was any agreement to pay the sums claimed by the Claimant. The Defendant further denies that they entered into any contract with the Claimant or that they were made aware of any terms that could form a binding agreement.
8. The Defendant respectfully submits that the claim should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and as an abuse of the court’s process. The Defendant requests that the court awards costs in their favour pursuant to CPR 27.14.