PCN for no payment, letter before claim received from gladstones

pingpongotter

Hi there, I have read the newbies thread, attempted to communicate with the landowner and had my response to the letter before claim rejected by gladstones. 

This is in relation to a car park i entered for 20 minutes (plus 30 seconds) to pick some people up, whilst there I tried for about 10 minutes to pay for an hours parking using RingGO app, there was no signal at the car park so I could not get the app to work. The car park does not accept cash payments of any kind. After trying for a while I gave up and left. It was only 20 minutes so I didn’t then attempt to pay once I got signal outside of the area. 

The first letter was from Minster Baywatch, £100 or £60 if paid within 14 days. I did not respond. The second letter was the letter before claim from Gladstones. I then contacted the landowner who have not replied and have a FAQS on their website that says they cannot intervene in PCNs. And then I wrote to Gladstones using the template laid out on the newbies thread and explaining the situation with the signal/app/no cash option and offering to pay for an hour plus a £10 gesture fo goodwill. 

This has been rejected in their reponse as follows -

~

Turning to the content of your email, we do not accept your representations and all sums owing are due in full. 

Please find attached the content we trust to be self-explanatory. 

 Our Client is therefore satisfied the case against you should proceed unless the debt owing of £xxx.xx is discharged in full. To ensure no further action is taken, you should make payment on or before xx/xx/xxxx.

If you do not make payment, we are instructed to issue legal proceedings to recover the outstanding balance in full. Should it become necessary to issue legal proceedings, we suggest you follow the steps on the claim form upon receipt of the same. 

~

I guess I will soon get a court summons and have to draft my defence. Has anyone had any experience with an app not working and there not being any alternative payment option? What’s the best way of explaining this in paragraph 3 of my defence? 

Thanks you in advance for any help anyone can offer. 

X

 

Gr1pr

You definitely will not receive a summons,  but will likely receive a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the top in Northampton 

Plenty of other similar cases,  but there is a Gladstones defence linked already in the 2 announcements 

pingpongotter

Thanks Gr1pr, I’m new to this! I’ll look up the Money Claim N1SDT pack and the gladstones defences 

Coupon-mad

Just read some Gladstones claim threads. 

  

pingpongotter

So my defence was not accepted and I have a court date next week.

In the 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track it states that the Claimant is to send me a "paper bundle with all pages numbered and with an index… no later than 7 days before the hearing date". It states that this should include a copy of their case and a load of other documents. I have had nothing like this in the post and it is now within 7 days of the hearing. Is this normal in these cases.

My defence as submitted is as follows. Any advice on the hearing and how to play it would be greatly appreciated. I can pay the fine if it comes to that, I am not worried about that, I just don't want these !!!!!! to win!

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. The facts as known to the Defendant:

3.1. The Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on 26/07/2025. The vehicle entered the car park at 18:56:05 and left at 19:16:35, a total duration of 20 and one half minutes.

3.2. Frustration of Contract: Upon arrival, the Defendant attempted to pay for parking using the payment app advertised on the signage, as this was the sole method of payment available at this cashless site. The Defendant spent approximately 10 minutes attempting to load the app and process payment, but due to poor mobile signal, the service was inaccessible. The Defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable attempts to pay the tariff.

3.3. It is submitted that the contract was frustrated by the failure of the Claimant's payment system. Where a parking operator provides a payment method that fails, and provides no alternative (e.g., a working terminal or cash option), they cannot hold the driver liable for a breach of contract for non-payment.

3.4. Consideration and Grace Periods: The Claimant is a member of a the BPA Trade Body and is required to adhere to their Code of Practice. These Codes require a "Consideration Period" (time to read terms and initiate payment) and a "Grace Period" (time to leave). (a) The Defendant spent the first 10 minutes in the "Consideration Period" attempting to pay. (b) Upon realizing payment was impossible, the Defendant immediately vacated the site. (c) The total time on site was 20.5 minutes. Even if the Claimant argues the standard 10-minute grace period applies, the alleged "overstay" is mere seconds or at most one minute.

3.5. De Minimis Non Curat Lex: The alleged breach involves a period of time so minimal (less than one minute over the combined consideration and grace periods) that it triggers the principle of de minimis non curat lex—the law does not concern itself with trifles. It would be unconscionable to enforce a penalty of £100+ for such a trivial matter, particularly when the delay was caused by the Claimant’s own technical infrastructure.

3.6. Conduct: The Defendant acted reasonably by leaving once it became apparent payment could not be made. The Defendant later attempted to settle the matter by offering to pay the 1 hour parking tariff plus a £10 gesture of goodwill to cover the Claimant's administrative inconvenience, which was unreasonably rejected.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (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 [2015] UKSC67.

7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(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'.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

10. This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

pingpongotter

Additionally, I did not at any time receive a witness statement from the claimant.

Coupon-mad

Good, they dropped the ball. Errrm did you also breach the hearing order, or just them?

Defence was not your only job. Where's your own WS bundle? You don't just rock up to a hearing having not done what page 2 of your hearing Order requires.

Hope I'm wrong … but if not, go re-read post 2 of NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST and the WS section underneath the screaming red capitals sub heading 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN' and get your WS & evidence (exhibits) in tomorrow morning without fail.

pingpongotter

I also dropped the ball. I totally missed that bit, or forgot about it with the time that’s passed. It says it needed to be in no later than 15th September. I presume it’s now too late.

MrJenkinsEsq

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82149303#Comment_82149303

Late is better than never!

pingpongotter

ok, I presumed late was too late to be useable

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82149351#Comment_82149351

You presume wrong.

Why do you think I gave you the nudge?!

🙂

Get it done this weekend!

Loads of late WS go in, we see this often, and people attend their hearings and can speak and win. Without a WS - unless you get a very kindly judge - you aren't a witness and are technically not allowed to give oral evidence at the hearing.

Read the second post of the NEWBIES thread like I said. I even list your exhibits for you…