UK CPM GLADSTONES court claim SUCCESS

Nosy

Finished the hearing today and won £50 for costs. The claim was dismissed, the judge was a nice guy, accepted my WS and claim dismissed due to the signs not being clear and no contract being in place. Even if contract was in place it's would have been a frustrated contract, etc.

Thanks again all for your help with this. 

Nellymoser

👏 Well done you. 

Gr1pr

Well done,   Another one bites the dust  !

UK CPM & Gladstones lose again 

Your consideration period was reasonable,  you left when you couldn't fulfill the parking contract,  so frustration of contract, equals no parking contract,  plus poor and unclear,  inadequate,  wordy signage 

Please complete the consultation 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025#latest

And add SUCCESS to the end of the thread title 

Coupon-mad

Nosy said:

Finished the hearing today and won £50 for costs. The claim was dismissed, the judge was a nice guy, accepted my WS and claim dismissed due to the signs not being clear and no contract being in place. Even if contract was in place it's would have been a frustrated contract, etc.

Thanks again all for your help with this. 

Yay! Well done again. Shows that a late WS is better than none at all.

As @Gr1pr says:

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Now read this message and please prepare to join us to do the Public Consultation once we've discussed it in August. It's vital the Government hears from Defendants threatened by court:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

Please bookmark the main thread linked in that link. Come back in August to take part.

We need to drown out the twisted lies and 'alternative facts' from the parking industry and their relatives posing as ordinary motorist consumers.

LoneStarState

@Coupon-mad

Below is the IAS decision
"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances. I am satisfied that the Operator's signage, which was on display throughout the site, makes it sufficiently clear that the terms and conditions are in force at all times and that a PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to comply with the terms and conditions, regardless of a driver's reasons for being on site or any mitigating factors. While noting their comments, it is clear from the evidence provided to this appeal that the Appellant did indeed enter and use the site otherwise than in accordance with the displayed terms by failing to ensure that their vehicle was properly registered with a valid payment, having been allowed an adequate consideration period prior to the charge being issued. It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are properly complied with. Due to the nature of the terms, whether the vehicle was left unattended at any point is largely irrelevant to this appeal. Having considered the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this location.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed."

Hi Nosy

Do you still happen to have the original IAS adjudication email informing you of this outcome with the text above? 

I ask because I wish to build a comprehensive formal complaint about the IAS to the CTSI who have given them accredited ADR status.  I recently received an adjudication outcome for a pay and display car park that is word for word an exact copy of your IAS decision.  I'm looking to compile a few more of these identical generic template adjudications as part of the complaint if possible along with other damning evidence.

Cheers

LSS