Quick Check - Gladstones Claim UPDATED 05/05/2026 - WS/Skeleton Rec'd, hearing within next 7 days

Taiko

Indeed. Done all the compliance stage my end, and told them the outcome in an email of the 17th, plus they've also had my defence by both email and post, seeing as according to their email signatures they don't accept by that method, even though they're happy to serve in such a way. Wasn't potentially sure if my email on the 17th providing the bank details would effectively put them on notice and trigger them contacting the court, but I can be patient if not applicable.

Cheers for the confirmation!

Taiko

Payment call came through, and seems they have paid the hearing fee in Feb, listed for a hearing in the summer and their fee wasn't due for some time.

Court order itself had in bold text "Parties to attend", which seemed a little stronger than some of the court orders I see posted up. I'm wondering if, given this is a final hearing, this is basically a direction from the judge that he wants there someone who can actually answer any questions in cross-examination, as opposed to a rep reading from a script with no direct knowledge.

Is this perhaps a slightly different move to normal from a judge who might be clued in?

Taiko

Received the WS early from Gladstones, as it's not actually due for another few days. Have mine prepped, but now can spend the weekend countering some parts of theirs. Few points pulled out:

New registered solicitor at Gladstones has prepped the WS, and appears to have only joined the company this month.

"The landowner is a blue-chip company and thus is a well-established
corporation who deem the agreement with the Claimant to be confidential and wish to avoid
inadvertent wider circulation of the landowner agreement and/or the same being made available
within the public domain. On this basis, the Claimant is not authorised to disclose the landowner
agreement but confirms that such an agreement exists" I'll still suggest this is put to proof, given they can redact anything confidential.

"The date in question was a match day and, accordingly, a maximum stay period of 90 minutes
applied to all users of the Site." Signage says 90mins on a matchday, but are non-fans expected to know when these are? Going to review setup on a match day at the next chance.

"The Google Location tracking exhibited by the Defendant does not
expressly identify the Vehicle in question, as it does not provide any vehicle registration number
or other evidence capable of linking the journey log to the Vehicle. As such, the Defendant’s
evidence is inherently limited and cannot properly displace the Claimant’s evidence as to the
Vehicle’s presence at the Site" Correct in statement that it doesn't show which vehicle someone is in. But then why would anyone park in a restricted time area, then drive to another and drive back again?

"The Defendant’s reliance on Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is misplaced and
irrelevant to the issues before the Court. The Claimant does not seek to rely on the provisions of
PoFA in order to establish liability. Accordingly, the Defendant’s submissions concerning the
alleged non-compliance of the Notice to Keeper with PoFA are of no consequence. This is not a
claim advanced on the basis of statutory keeper liability under Schedule 4, and the Defendant’s
attempt to address the claim on that footing is therefore misconceived.

Further, it is denied that the Claimant is under any obligation to identify the driver. The Defendant
is pursued in their capacity as the registered keeper of the Vehicle, and the burden does not fall
upon the Claimant to investigate or prove the precise identity of the driver in circumstances where
the claim is advanced otherwise than under PoFA. The Defendant’s assertion that responsibility
for the Vehicle was shared with their partner does not avail them. It is no more than a bare
assertion, unsupported by any evidence, and does not amount to a substantive defence to the
claim" Seen in @JackR1's thread recently also, and using that for reference.

"As to the reference in the Particulars of Claim to the sum of £80.00, an administration fee of £10
was added by the Claimant pursuant to the Final Demand dated 15th February 2024. The Schedule
of Loss appended to this witness statement makes clear that the principal sum now sought is
£70.00, being the correct Parking Charge amount" - So the PoC, signed with a Statement of Truth, were false. This was also not disputed in the Witness Statement they submitted at the set-aside hearing.

Coupon-mad

Good points.

My thoughts are, what on earth is this witness thinking?!

"This is not a claim advanced on the basis of statutory keeper liability under Schedule 4"

"The Defendant is pursued in their capacity as the registered keeper of the Vehicle,"

Errrr… how exactly?!

Taiko

One thing I'm just thinking of is whether I need to include the witness statements from set-aside as exhibits, or if I can just refer back to them as it'll be linked to the case file. Imagine I'll go with the "If in doubt.." approach, because the £80 issue was mentioned at set-aside and they ignored it then.

The WS file was also named "Bundle the approved, signed statement with the exhibits", just out of interest.

Johnersh

Remember the claimant is obliged to provide proper disclosure (per the old chestnut that is Hancock v Promontoria) At its heart this is a claim in contract for a car park. There is nothing so commercially sensitive that could provide a basis for not disclosing that contract. They could redact any sums exchanged.

Agree with Coupon - it makes sense to acknowledge Cs clarification that it does not rely on PoFA. I would then plead that there is no basis for keeper liability, that being the only legal mechanism for a third party other than the driver to become liable for a PCN.

Clearly a driver defence remains essential too.

Taiko

Popped to the location in the middle of the Portsmouth vs Leicester match today. No signage around the Tesco itself to indicate it was a matchday, just the entrance sign. Nothing else had changed.

So, according to GS everyone is expected to know the football fixtures prior to parking. At that time, which would've been early in the 2nd half, everything appeared to just be a normal day around the area. No coaches parked up, no police presence, traffic freely flowing.

Their entire logic is absurd!

Thanks also for the Hancock v Promontoria info, which is useful to include.

Castle

The logic is absurd because it could be any match in any sport.

Taiko

Hearing this week, and have had their skeleton through, which is laughable. Parts that got me giggling the most:

"The Defendant’s reliance on Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907 is misplaced. That authority concerned the construction of a heavily redacted deed of assignment in the context of a substantial assigned banking debt and statutory demand, where the claimant’s title to sue depended upon the effect of the assignment documentation. It is not analogous to a private parking charge claim, where the cause of action arises from the contractual terms displayed on the signage and accepted by the motorist’s use of the Site. The Court is not being asked to construe a deed of assignment or determine title to an assigned debt. Further, the Claimant’s position is that its authority to manage and enforce parking exists, but the central issue remains whether a binding parking contract was formed and breached."

8. By contrast, the Claimant’s ANPR evidence records the Vehicle entering and exiting the Site and establishes the duration of stay. There is no cogent evidence that the Vehicle exited and later re-entered the Site. The alleged “double-dip” is speculative and unsupported.

9. The Defendant is put to strict proof of any assertion that the Vehicle made multiple visits to the Site on the material date.

PoFA and Driver Identity

10. The Defendant’s reliance on Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is misplaced. The Claimant does not rely on PoFA to establish liability, and any alleged non-compliance with PoFA is therefore irrelevant. It is denied that the Claimant is required to identify the driver. The Defendant’s assertion that responsibility for the Vehicle was shared with their partner is unsupported and does not amount to a substantive defence.

Sum Claimed and Costs

11. The principal Parking Charge is £70, as stated on the signage. Any reference to £80 arises from a £10 administration fee added pursuant to the Final Demand dated 15 February 2024. The Schedule of Loss confirms the principal sum sought is £70. The additional sums claimed were made clear by the contractual signage and are not invented or retrospectively applied.

12. The Defendant’s assertion that the Claimant has acted unreasonably in bringing the claim is denied. The claim is properly advanced on the basis of a parking charge arising from the Defendant’s vehicle exceeding the maximum permitted stay. The burden of establishing unreasonable conduct is a high one, and the mere fact that the Defendant disputes the claim does not entitle him to costs outside the ordinary small claims regime. Further, the Defendant’s claimed costs are excessive and misconceived. The matter is listed for a 45-minute hearing, and any loss of earnings is capped at £95 per day under the applicable small claims costs provisions; there is no proper basis for claiming two days’ loss of earnings. It is also unclear why the Defendant seeks to recover parking costs twice. In addition, the Defendant is not entitled to recover the alleged 14 hours spent preparing a Defence and two witness statements as though this were ordinary recoverable litigation time. The Defendant was already awarded costs at the set aside hearing and cannot now seek to recover again for reviewing the Claimant’s evidence and exhibits which were served for that hearing, nor for preparing a witness statement for that hearing. Accordingly, the Defendant’s application or request for costs should be dismissed. The Defendant has identified no conduct capable of meeting the threshold for unreasonable conduct.

I've also picked up their skeleton reference a lot of my witness statement, parts of which such as Promontoria were first referenced by me within that. My WS was dated the 19th April, but they've signed as Gladstones the skeleton, and dated that skeleton the 17th April. Potentially minor point, but I might raise it with the judge when challenging credibility, unless it's thought unwise.

Rest of things I'm all happy with ahead of the hearing. Will have a report posted up either way as and when possible.

Coupon-mad

"I've also picked up their skeleton reference a lot of my witness statement, parts of which such as Promontoria were first referenced by me within that. My WS was dated the 19th April, but they've signed as Gladstones the skeleton, and dated that skeleton the 17th April. Potentially minor point, but I might raise it with the judge when challenging credibility, unless it's thought unwise."

Good idea. Most judges would be VERY pee'd off to see that. Allegedly lying about the 'date signed' then that witness (who isn't a witness) not actually turning up to be questioned at the hearing is wholly unreasonable and possibly contempt.

Also wholly unreasonable, is pretending that they can pursue a registered keeper outwith the POFA. That's an outright lie. If it were true, Parliament need never have enacted Schedule 4.