Notice of Proposed Allocation to the small Claims Track" questionnaire to fill out.

jsn_love

Hi all, 

Thank you for the responses!

I submitted my witness statement last week and just got an email from Gladestones:

Please find attached, by way of service upon you, our Client’s Skeleton Argument. 

We confirm a copy of the Skeleton Argument has been filed at the Court. 

Do I need to do anything in response to this? or just attend the hearing?

jsn_love

They are addressing points I made in my witness statement

Coupon-mad

jsn_love said:

DEFENCE SUBMITTED:

This is the exact wording I used:

'I would like to dispute this claim as I never received the 

original parking ticket letter. I was never given the opportunity to make 

payment or see any evidence before my information was sold to an 

external debt recovery team that has been harassing me ever since. 

All I ask is that premier park limited send me the original ticket and 

give me a chance to make payment instead of selling my information 

to external debt recovery companies. I was and still am more than 

happy to make payment once I have seen the evidence of this parking 

offence and received a letter.'

------------------------------------------

WITNESS STATEMENT SUBMITTED:

I, MY NAME, of MY ADDRESS, being the Defendant in this case, state as follows:

1. Introduction and Background 1.1 I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number CAR REG. I do not recall receiving any Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Premier Park Limited before receiving a letter from Debt Recovery Plus (DRP). I also do not recall seeing any PCN affixed to my windscreen at the time of the alleged contravention.

1.2 The facts in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. My defence is repeated and expanded upon as follows.

2. Chronology of Events 2.1 The first I heard of the alleged contravention was via a DRP letter, which I initially assumed to be a scam. I called DRP immediately, who insisted Premier Park had sent prior notices. I had not received any such communication.

2.2 I submitted a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) to Premier Park to confirm whether an original PCN had been issued, and to obtain any other relevant documentation.

2.3 I also contacted my mobile provider EE to obtain call logs that would support my efforts to resolve this matter. EE confirmed that they do not retain call data beyond 12 months, and I was therefore unable to retrieve historical call records.

2.4 My DVLA address was, and remains, correct. There is no explanation as to why any PCNs or reminders were not received.

3. Legal Arguments and Procedural Irregularities 3.1 The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to disclose a proper cause of action. They do not identify the precise conduct alleged to be a breach. This is contrary to CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 paras 7.3–7.5.

3.2 The cases of Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande(Ref. K0DP5J30) have established that vague PoC are grounds for striking out claims under CPR 3.4.

3.3 The Claimant has failed to provide a breakdown of the charges and interest calculation, nor substantiated the additional £70 "debt recovery" fee. This is contrary to CPR 16.4(2).

4. Lack of Adequate Notice and Unfair Terms 4.1 The car park at Lakeside Shopping Centre is free of charge to park. There are no payment machines present, and I was not aware of any requirement to pay to park at the time.

4.2 Signage was not visible, prominent, or readable at a distance. POFA 2012 Schedule 4 requires that drivers are given adequate notice. The signage does not meet this standard.

4.3 As per Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest, a driver is not bound by terms not seen. Furthermore, Spurling v Bradshaw and Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking establish that hidden terms cannot be enforced.

4.4 The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) requires all contract terms and consumer notices to be fair, transparent, and prominently displayed. The signage breaches sections 62–64 and Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14, 18).

5. Exaggerated and Unconscionable Charges 5.1 The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 allowed £85 as a justified charge due to the specific commercial context. That justification does not apply here, where Premier Park operates a paid parking site for profit.

5.2 ParkingEye v Somerfield [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) found that inflated admin costs were penal. This principle applies to the unexplained £70 charge added in this case.

5.3 The DLUHC draft Impact Assessment (July 2023) confirms that the average cost of debt recovery is just £8.42. This claim's inflated costs represent a form of double recovery.

6. Public Policy and Market Failure 6.1 The Government has recognised market failure in the private parking sector. The forthcoming statutory Code of Practice was introduced to address misleading signs, aggressive debt collection, and inflated charges.

6.2 Despite its temporary withdrawal for legal reasons, the Code and IA remain highly persuasive and should be considered by the Court in assessing fairness and proportionality.

7. Conclusion and Costs Request 7.1 The Claimant has failed to prove:

• That a valid contract existed;

• That adequate notice was given;

• That the charges claimed are justified or lawful.

7.2 I respectfully ask the Court to dismiss the claim. Given the Claimant's unreasonable behaviour and the time I have spent preparing my case, I request costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) as follows:

• Preparation and research (5 hours at £21.03/hr): £105.15

• Loss of earnings for attending court (7.5 hours at £21.03/hr): £157.73

• Travel expenses: £50.00

• Childcare for 3 children (1 full day): £75.00 Total: £387.88

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.

Signed: ____________________________

Gladstones have said in their weak, template skelly that the POC must be acceptable (despite the lack of specified breach) because your defence was 'substantive'...

...but it wasn't!

It was a very basic defence because you never received a PCN and the POC did not elucidate. You knew nothing about the case and had not even seen the alleged contract. The POC did not help you understand the rationale, cause of action or the heads of cost. Hence a basic defence was put in. Not a substantive one!

They have clearly adapted a template skelly.

Then they have the cheek to say (in template words) that you used an 'internet template for your WS' but it doesn't read that way to me. You made it your own, with sub-headings and relevant points about the signage and it is your genuine witness account.

Unlike their WS!

...which isn't even from the Claimant, I assume? Written by a stranger: a paralegal from Gladstones who is not a party to the case and has no knowledge of the event, payment systems or the car park. Theirs isn't a WS - it's template legal argument prolix - and the POC was wholly inadequate and should be struck out. Per CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

That is your starter for ten at the hearing. Be confident with this opener. Push to get the claim struck out, then ask for your costs.

Could be all over within 10 minutes.

jsn_love

Thank you for all your help!