Support needed – Horizon/Gladstone Witness Statement (Hearing confirmed)

Coupon-mad

Yes it makes sense but you need to press home that HHJ Simpkiss was very wrong in OPS v Wilshaw to the extent that - reportedly - no judge has found it persuasive. Not least because he was not told by either party's barrister that the private parking wider operational allowed framework is different, in that the DVLA KADOE agreement and the industry Code of Practice make prior, written landowner authority mandatory.

Hammer that home verbally and call out tis major omission at the hearing. Suggest this omission must be fatal to the case:

the landowner deems the agreement to be confidential and they are therefore not authorised to disclose it.

The point is, even the Government's new incoming statutory Code (to be laid before Parliament this Autumn) requires and mandates full current, 'site-specific' landowner authority & map evidence to be made available for all disputes. Otherwise, a rogue operator could leave signs up after expiry of a contract or operate outside of the site with impunity. It's not just about putting up a sign.

JackR1

Finished my witness statement / evidence bundle and due to linking some of the referenced judgments, I have been able to reduce it down to 36 pages. 😊

I have submitted the documents to the court and asked that the Court grants Relief from Sanctions under CPR 3.9 and admits this statement in the interest of the Overriding Objective. I added that " I submit that this request should be granted on the following grounds:"

• Nature of the Breach: The delay was unintentional and caused by a genuine misunderstanding of procedural rules by a non-legal professional.
• Lack of Prejudice: The Claimant is not prejudiced by this late submission. The primary evidence relied upon (the Notice to Keeper) is a document already within the Claimant’s own possession and included in their bundle.
• Administration of Justice: Admitting this statement ensures the Court has a full and fair account of the facts, allowing the case to be decided justly.

I have also made quite a few adjustments to my witness statement. I will post the final submitted version separately in case anyone is interested. Hopefully the adjusted witness statement and my request for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 does not contain too many mistakes and makes legal sense. I couldn't possibly wait any longer to submit, so in any case I will not be able to adjust it.

A HUGE THANK YOU to everyone for the incredible support especially @Coupon-mad whose input has been absolutely crucial in getting this over the finish line. I couldn't have navigated this without the help of this community!

Let's see what happens in court in two weeks time.

JackR1

1.  I, XXX of XXX, am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2.  In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. For the Court’s convenience, I have also included direct links where possible to the full text of any legal judgments mentioned.

3.  I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Defective Particulars of Claim

3.  The Claimant’s case is vague, lacking the detail required under Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, which require a claimant to set out all facts necessary to establish a complete cause of action. The Particulars of Claim (POC) simply allege that “the driver of the vehicle with registration XXX parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage”. However, the Claimant provides no information on the specific terms said to have been breached, the conduct that allegedly broke those terms, or how any contract was formed. This absence of essential detail fails to justify the claim and has also made it difficult for me to respond to it effectively in my defence.

4.  I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are numerous recent and persuasive Appeal Judgments to support dismissing or striking out this claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The POC seen here in my case are far worse than the ones seen on the below Appeals).

5. The first persuasive Appeal Judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (click for link) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held in paragraph 11 that “the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract”. 

6.  The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd. v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim. A copy of the transcript of HHJ Evans’ judgement is included in Exhibit OW-04.

7.  Taking the above paragraphs 3 to 6 into consideration, I find the Claimant’s accusation in paragraph 25 of their Witness Statement baffling, stating that the Defendant "…does not positively deny that the vehicle was parked at the Site for longer than the clearly advertised maximum stay, and advances no coherent alternative explanation consistent with the contemporaneous photographic and ANPR evidence of the overstay."

8.  Given that the driver has never been identified, AND the fact that the deliberate vague/generic wording in the POC is not actually pleading ‘overstay’, how can I possibly be criticised for not responding to a new allegation that has only now been brought forward by the Claimant in their Witness Statement.

The Claimants Authority to Issue Parking Charges

9.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue. Under the DVLA KADOE agreement and the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice Version 9 - February 2024 (Clause 7), the right to manage this site and access my data is strictly contingent upon valid, written landowner authority. The Claimant has failed to disclose the contract, its schedules, or a verified site boundary map. Unreadable signage pictures (Exhibit GS-1), a "digital stock image," and an unverified aerial view are insufficient to prove the Claimant had the legal authority to operate on this specific land on 6 April 2024.

10.  The Claimant’s reliance on One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] is a misapplication of law. While Wilshaw addresses the formation of a contract with a driver, it does not relieve a Claimant of the burden of proving the specific terms of that alleged contract to the Court. In this instance, the photographs of the signage provided by the Claimant in their evidence bundle (Exhibit GS-1) are of such poor quality that the terms and conditions are entirely unreadable. Consequently, the Claimant has failed to provide the Court with the necessary evidence to determine the specific terms offered or to verify that a binding contract was ever formed. Furthermore, the Claimant’s assertion that landowner authority is unnecessary provided there is a 'binding contract' fails by its own logic: without legible evidence of the terms, the Court cannot conclude that any such contract exists. In the absence of both a visible Landowner Agreement and legible evidence of the contractual terms, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action.

11. I reject the Claimant’s 'confidentiality' plea in paragraph 10 of their witness statement. The Claimant asserts that the landowner wishes to avoid 'wider circulation' or the document entering the 'public domain.' The Claimant has the clear option to provide a redacted version of the agreement—masking sensitive names or figures while still proving the existence, scope, and dates of their legal standing. The total withholding of this primary evidence prevents the Court from verifying essential facts: the site's geographic boundaries, the contract's expiry date, and whether the landowner mandated specific grace periods that would invalidate this PCN. Permitting a Claimant to proceed based on a mere 'confirmation' that an agreement exists would set a dangerous precedent, allowing 'rogue operators' to continue enforcement after contracts have expired or outside authorized boundaries with total impunity. In the absence of this document, the Court is invited to draw an adverse inference that no such authority exists.

No Valid Contract Formed

12. It is neither admitted nor denied that any contract term was breached. However, for a valid contract to be formed, there must be an offer, acceptance, and something of value given in return — which was not present here. Under section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015 ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents ) the Court must apply a 'test of fairness' and this requires contract terms and any “consumer notices” to be clear and prominent. 

13.  Looking at Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14, and 18) and section 62 of the CRA, which require fair, open dealing and good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant is known to use unclear and potentially unfair terms and notices. Based on the limited information provided in this case, the situation appears to be similar. The Claimant is therefore required to strictly prove their case with contemporaneous photographs.

14. None of the Claimant’s photographs of the signage on site (Exhibit GS-1 of the Claimant’s witness statement) include readable terms and conditions, preventing the court from verifying what contractual terms were offered to motorists on these signs. Instead, the Claimant relies on a digital stock image of a sign, which does not evidence that this version of the sign— and the specific terms and conditions shown on that stock image—were displayed at the site on 6 April 2024.

15.  I would also like to draw the attention of the Judge to the Claimant’s photographs on page 11 and page 13 of their Witness Statement (Exhibit GS-1). These pictures clearly show that two different sign versions are erected on the site. No evidence has been supplied regarding the second sign or its contractual wording. This omission is fatal to the Claimant’s assertion that unambiguous terms were available and capable of forming a contract.

16.  The Claimant has provided a Signage Location Plan (Exhibit GS-2 of the Claimant’s witness statement) purporting to show all signage locations on site. However, this plan is demonstrably both inaccurate and misleading.

17.  The map indicates signage in two particular locations where the Claimant's own photographic evidence (Exhibit GS-1, page 13) show no signs present at those locations. One of these signs is at the site entry point used by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle as seen on the images in Exhibit GS-3 in the Claimant’s witness statement. I revisited the site and my photographs of the site’s approach and entrance (Exhibit OW-01) corroborate that the sign shown on the Claimant’s map as being at that entrance remains absent. I have also included a screenshot from Google Maps Streetview dated July 2024 which shows the same site entry point and the absence of any signage at that location (Exhibit OW-02).

18.  Conversely, the sign visible on the right-hand side of the image on page 11 and both signs shown in the image on page 13 (Exhibit GS‑1 of the Claimant’s witness statement) do not appear anywhere on the Claimant’s Signage Location Plan. These inconsistencies call into question the reliability and accuracy of the entire site plan (Exhibit GS‑2) submitted by the Claimant.

19.  The absence of any signage at the site approach and entrance used by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is particularly significant. Under Sections 62–68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents ), contractual terms must be fair, transparent, and prominently displayed. Additionally, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA), the Claimant is contractually obliged to comply with the BPA’s Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. Section 19.2 of this Code states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance…” (Exhibit OW‑03).

20.  Not only has the Claimant failed to comply with their own applicable Code of Practice, but they have also misled the court by asserting that an entrance sign was present when it was clearly not.

21.  The misleading and inaccurate Signage Location Plan (Exhibit GS‑2 of the Claimant’s witness statement) raises serious concerns regarding the reliability of the Claimant’s evidence and their adherence to the required standards. Without clear, accurate, and consistent evidence demonstrating the location and visibility of contractual signage, the Claimant cannot prove that the terms were effectively communicated. As such, no contract could have been formed with the driver.

Keeper Liability and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

22.  I confirm that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration number XXX and deny any liability.

23.  The Claimant states in paragraph 26 of their witness statement that they are pursuing the Defendant as “the contracting party and, in the alternative, on the evidential basis that, on the balance of probabilities, the Defendant was the driver." This assertion is both incorrect and unsupported.

24.  Furthermore, this contradicts the claimant’s statement in paragraph 21 of their own Witness Statement that “The defendant is therefore pursued as the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle”.

25.  The Defendant has never been identified as the driver, nor has any other person. The Claimant has provided no evidence whatsoever that the Defendant was driving at the time of the alleged breach. Only the driver—as the person who could have potentially seen and accepted any terms on the signage—could possibly be the contracting party.

26.  The Claimant relies only on an assumption, claiming that an inference should be drawn because the Defendant has not nominated another driver. However, there is no legal requirement for a registered keeper to name a driver in a private parking matter, and no such presumption exists in law.

27.  If the Claimant wishes to pursue the Defendant as the driver, the burden rests entirely on them to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Defendant was in fact driving. Mere speculation or assumption is not enough.

28.  In April 2023, HHJ Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation. HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed. (Exhibit OW-05)

29.  If, instead, the Claimant seeks to pursue me as the keeper as the Claimant states in the POC and in paragraph 21 of their witness statement, then they must meet the strict requirements under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to transfer liability from the unknown driver to me as the keeper. ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4 )

30.  However, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued by the Claimant on 12 April 2024 (Exhibit GS-4 of the Claimant’s witness statement) does not include any of the mandatory requirements under Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. The most notable omission being the failure to provide any warning as stated in Paragraph 9(2)(f) regarding the transfer of liability to the keeper.

31.  Accordingly, the Claimant has failed to comply with POFA and cannot transfer liability to me as keeper. There is therefore no lawful basis for this claim against me.

32.  The fact that parking firms cannot invoke ‘keeper liability in case of non-compliance with POFA, has been tested on appeal in private parking cases including in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court (Exhibit OW-06), on appeal re-claim number C0DP9C4E, HHJ Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable without the POFA. Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all). HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Excel's claim was dismissed.

33.  The Claimant’s failure to invoke POFA 2012 is not an oversight, but a reflection of their established business model at the material time. In April 2024, the Claimant’s notices—including the Notice to Keeper (NTK) issued to me (Exhibit GS4 of the claimant’s witness statement) —were intentionally issued on a driver-liability-only basis. The Claimant was among a specific group of operators that historically chose to bypass the statutory requirements of Schedule 4.

34. My research into dozens of the Claimant’s contemporary notices confirms this was a systemic choice. Without exception, Horizon Parking NTKs from this period asserted liability against the driver alone and omitted any mention of POFA 2012 or keeper liability. This research also confirmed that the Claimant only transitioned to a POFA-compliant "Keeper Liability" model around February 2025.

35. Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that at the time of the alleged contravention, the Claimant operated exclusively under a model where only the driver could be held contractually liable.

36. The Claimant’s Witness Statement is fundamentally misleading. In Paragraph 21, the Claimant explicitly states the Defendant is pursued as the Registered Keeper, yet the Claimant’s own evidence in Exhibits GS4 and GS5 proves the Claimant knowingly issued non-PoFA documents. By asserting 'Keeper Liability' in a formal statement to the Court while being in possession of documents that provide no such legal standing, the Claimant is presenting a case that is both factually and legally incoherent.

37. It is highly improbable that this was an oversight. The Claimant’s legal representative, Gladstones Solicitors, possesses specialized expertise in this field, having been instrumental in the founding of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) and its associated Code of Practice and appeal process. Given this deep institutional knowledge of parking law and POFA 2012, the decision to pursue a 'Keeper Liability' claim in the absence of POFA compliance is a deliberate choice to litigate a meritless claim.

38.  Bringing a claim with the full knowledge that the statutory requirements for Keeper Liability have not been met constitutes unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). This has resulted in a significant waste of the Court’s time and resources, forcing the Defendant to contest a claim that the Claimant and their solicitors knew, or ought to have known, had no prospect of success from the outset.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

39.  In accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of POFA 2012, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering from the keeper any sum greater than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they existed at the time the Notice to Driver was issued. The sum claimed in these proceedings exceeds that statutory maximum and is therefore unrecoverable from the keeper. ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4 )

40.  Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor “may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued.”   Any added sums—such as “debt recovery fees”, “late fees”, or other invented add‑ons—are not “parking related charges” within the meaning of POFA. These additional amounts do not appear on signage, are not part of any contractual parking charge, and are created solely by third‑party debt recovery agents. POFA provides no legal basis to impose keeper liability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which is denied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.

41.  Also, the PCN on the Claimant’s own signage was £85 (Exhibit GS-1 of the Claimant’s witness statement), whereas the Claimant claims £95 for the PCN in the POC. I understand that the Claimant now claims in their Witness Statement that this was an administrative error and has amended their claim to the initial amount of £85.

42.  To impose a PC, as well as a breach, the Claimant must show two things: (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 UKSC67 (https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0280_judgment_c7f37dda32.pdf).

43.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis (click here) , confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'.

44.  The binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores EWHC4023(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 a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

45.  In addition to this, the ‘additional charges’ constitutes a double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V in which £60 had been added to a parking charge.

46.  Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Following the beforementioned exaggerated costs and charges, the court is invited to strike out or dismiss the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Conclusion

47.  For all the reasons set out in this statement, the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules, fail to specify which contractual terms were allegedly breached, provide no details of the conduct said to amount to a breach, and give no explanation of how any contract was formed. This lack of essential information mirrors the defective pleadings repeatedly criticised and struck out in persuasive appeal authorities and has made it difficult to effectively and properly respond in one’s defence.

48. The Claimant has also failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were prominently displayed, consistent, or capable of forming a binding agreement with the driver. The Claimant’s own evidence shows inconsistent signage, missing entrance signs, and an inaccurate and misleading site plan. Without clear, reliable, and contemporaneous evidence of the terms allegedly relied upon, no contract could have been accepted and no liability could arise.

49.  Moreover, the Claimant has neither identified the driver nor complied with the strict statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 necessary to pursue the registered keeper. The Claimant’s attempt to imply keeper liability despite issuing a non‑POFA Notice to Keeper is both legally unsound and inconsistent with their own operating model at the time.

50.  The Claimant also seeks an inflated sum that includes unlawful and unrecoverable additions. These extra charges have been widely condemned in higher court decisions as disproportionate, penal, and an abuse of process. Such exaggeration further undermines the credibility and validity of the claim.

51. In light of the defective pleadings, non‑compliant notices, unreliable and misleading evidence, and exaggerated charges, I respectfully submit that this claim is without merit. I therefore invite the court to strike out or dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Unreasonable Conduct by Claimant(CPR 27.14(2)(g))

52.  In the alternative to striking out the claim, I respectfully invite the Court to determine that the Claimant has behaved unreasonably within the meaning of CPR 27.14(2)(g). The Claimant is professionally represented by a firm of solicitors specialising in private parking litigation and cannot claim ignorance of the statutory requirements governing their own industry. Specifically, at paragraph 21 of their witness statement, the Claimant states: “The Defendant is therefore pursued as the Registered Keeper pf [sic] the Vehicle.” Despite this explicit confirmation that they are pursuing me in my capacity as keeper, the Claimant has failed to mention or reference the POFA a single time in their entire statement.

53.  As Schedule 4 of POFA provides the sole statutory mechanism in English law to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, the Claimant is knowingly asking the Court to grant a remedy for which they have provided no legal authority. By ignoring the specific issues of POFA non-compliance raised in my Defence while continuing to press a legally hopeless case, the Claimant has demonstrated a vexatious disregard for the law and caused an unnecessary waste of the Court’s resources. No reasonable litigant, let alone a specialist professional, could genuinely believe this position to be viable."

54.  Further, the Claimant has submitted misleading evidence, including an inaccurate and demonstrably false “Signage Location Plan” purporting to show signage at the site entrance where no such sign existed masking the Claimant’s breach of their own Code of Practice. My contemporaneous photographs, site visit, and Google Streetview image all confirm this omission. The Claimant’s own photographs also expose inconsistencies between the signage displayed on site and the signage relied upon in their evidence bundle. Such defects undermine the reliability of the Claimant’s entire evidential foundation and amount to conduct no reasonable claimant should display.

55.  Additionally, the Claimant has advanced vague and defective Particulars of Claim that fail to disclose the alleged contractual terms, the conduct said to amount to a breach, or any cogent explanation of how a contract was formed. They have also inflated the claim with unlawful and unrecoverable additional sums, including a £70 “debt recovery” add‑on that has been repeatedly condemned in higher court authority as abusive and penal. The persistence in claiming such invented sums, contrary to POFA and contrary to binding authority, further demonstrates unreasonable conduct.

56.  Taken collectively, the pursuit of a claim with no legal basis, reliance on contradictory and misleading evidence, failure to plead a coherent cause of action, and continued inflation of the claim with unlawful charges amount to conduct that “transcends mere negligence” and meets the high bar of unreasonableness established in CPR 27.14(2)(g). Should the Court agree, I seek my Litigant‑in‑Person costs for time reasonably spent researching, drafting and preparing my defence and witness evidence, in accordance with the applicable LiP rate.

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.

SCHEDULE OF LOSSES

Loss of earnings / annual leave (Capped)

Claimant had to take one day of Annual Leave to attend the Court Hearing

- Statutory small‑claims cap: £95.00

Subtotal: £95.00

Printing Costs

Printing, paper and toner costs for documents.

- 120 pages × £0.15 per page = £18.00

Subtotal: £18.00

Travel Expenses

Roundtrip mileage costs for: 1) Site visit of XXX to inspect signage and take photographic evidence 2) Hand-deliver hard copy of Witness statement at XXX County Court 3) Attending the Hearing at XXX County Court

- 21 miles × £0.45 per mile = £9.45

Subtotal: £9.45

Litigant in Person Costs (CPR 27.14(2)(g) – If Awarded)

I reasonably estimate that I spent a minimum of 12 hours preparing my defence, researching the relevant law, examining the Claimant’s evidence, compiling exhibits, and drafting this witness statement. If the Court finds the Claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek the Litigant‑in‑Person rate of £19/hour.

- 12 hours research + preparation × £19/hour = £228.00

Subtotal (if awarded): £228.00

TOTAL (excluding LiP costs): £128.45

If unreasonable behaviour proven:

TOTAL (including LiP costs): £356.45

1505grandad

Suggest check schedule of losses - £6 out?

Car1980

It's £24 per hour now.

Re. the landowner agreement - a redacted copy, even if heavily so, is the standard level of evidence submitted in every parking case. There is no reason for none to be submitted whatsoever when confidential terms, which are usually irrelevant anyway, can easily be hidden.

The correct site, dates, registered company information and permission to bring legal action on behalf of the landowner is generally all that is required, none of which would be commercially sensitive. Plenty of parking cases have been dismissed due to errors with this information and the perception that court action can be taken whilst simultaneously keeping relevant information hidden is a failure of due diligence on the part of the claimant and their litigator, and comes across as disingenuous.

JackR1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81945019#Comment_81945019

Oh dear… I was a bit pressured finishing and submitting the docs, but still can't believe I got that one wrong… Thanks for flagging! I will prepare a new schedule of losses and take with me on the day of the hearing given I overstated it.

JackR1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81945027#Comment_81945027

That's really good to know and have in my back pocket for the hearing. I was already planning to really press on the missing landowner agreement and 'confidentially' gibberish during the hearing.

Not sure yet if I will amend the £19 per hour rate as it's my mistake for getting that wrong and understating it. I also don't really care about the actual amount, just hope they will be held to account for unreasonable conduct as I genuinely feel that's how they are behaving. In particular as they are claiming keeper liability but not even mention POFA whatsoever in their entire witness statement, evidence bundle, NTK, etc.. I really don't understand why they are pressing ahead with this, they must surely know their case is dead in the water on that point alone…

Coupon-mad

It's dead in the water unless a clueless judge presses you about who was driving and concludes it was you. Not many would take that road but you need to be ready for all eventualities. Never lie, if asked.

In my experience, no court hearing I've ever attended has quite gone the way I thought it would (albeit I've never lost one). Be guided by the judge's eye contact and body language as to what he/she likes best about your defence case.

I really like your WS and will bookmark it as a very good example, that includes HHJ Moloney's words in the first Beavis case.

And I especially like this:

"37. It is highly improbable that this was an oversight. The Claimant’s legal representative, Gladstones Solicitors, possesses specialized expertise in this field, having been instrumental in the founding of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) and its associated Code of Practice and appeal process. Given this deep institutional knowledge of parking law and POFA 2012, the decision to pursue a 'Keeper Liability' claim in the absence of POFA compliance is a deliberate choice to litigate a meritless claim.

38.  Bringing a claim with the full knowledge that the statutory requirements for Keeper Liability have not been met constitutes unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). This has resulted in a significant waste of the Court’s time and resources, forcing the Defendant to contest a claim that the Claimant and their solicitors knew, or ought to have known, had no prospect of success from the outset."

JackR1

Ok. There have a been a couple of developments in my case...

Gladstone just submitted a "Skeleton argument" to the court today mainly consisting of two parts: 1) Raising a procedural issue in which they challenge my late submission 2) Their response to my actual WS. I was fully expecting them to challenge my late submission, so no surprises over there.

My initial questions are just from a procedural aspect. What exactly is a skeleton argument? Where does this sit in the legal process, should I respond to it in writing or raise/reply in court ( keeping in mind that hearing is next Wed)? Is their reply to my submitted WS included just because it is their first opportunity to respond to my WS given my late submission (and probably only opportunity, given they are not attending in person to challenge my WS)?

JackR1

I will post their full "Skeleton Argument" in the next post. I am just really confused by it…

I am new to all this 'parking law', but having spend dozens of hours researching my case in preparation for the court hearing (with loads of support from the Forum), their arguments do not make any sense to me! In particular the following:

• They confirm that they are pursuing me as Keeper.
• They state that they are NOT relying on POFA and they do not to seek to invoke statutory keeper liability under POFA.
• They state that their case remains a straightforward contractual claim.
• They also state that there is no contradiction between identifying the Defendant as the Registered Keeper and declining to rely upon PoFA as the legal basis of the claim.

How does this all rhyme together? As Gladstone is the specialist in this field, what is it that I am missing here?