Gladstones - WS

szikor

Hi,

I am coming up to a hearing on a PCN for parking at a trading estate in a bay that was apparently belonging to a different unit from which I was a customer of. I was ignoring them up until the claim form (I know I should have followed the steps), then I have used the defence from this forum (thank you!). 

In Gladstones WS they attempt to discredit the defence as generic from the internet and hinting that I do not understand anything in the defence, and it should be struck out. 

They also stated that they will not be attending the hearing.

I have spotted some inconsistencies in their exhibits, I am hoping this will be a key factor. 

I guess my question is if the below WS with a few photos is sufficient, or should I elaborate further on various aspects of the initial defence?

Is it worth mentioning that they can't even be bothered to show up?

Anything worth removing to put the focus back on poor signage and their own inability to define boundaries?

Is the wording and structure suitable for a smaller court outside of a big city? (the numbering has been butchered as I pasted the text, it is consecutive)

Any feedback is appreciated, thank you.

I make this witness statement from matters within my own knowledge, save where otherwise stated, and I believe the facts stated herein to be true.

Introduction

1. I am the Defendant and was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration XXXXXX on the material date.

2. I make this witness statement in support of my Defence and in response to the Claimant’s witness statement signed by XXX of Gladstones Solicitors. XXX has no personal knowledge of the site or the events in question.

3. This statement addresses the core issues relevant to this claim: whether a contract was formed by clear and prominent signage, whether the Claimant had authority to contract and litigate, whether statutory requirements were met, and whether the sums claimed are recoverable.

The Site and Parking Arrangements

1. XYZ Trading Estate contains in excess of 100 parking spaces, which are subject to a variety of different parking arrangements depending on the unit and location.

2. The Claimant controls only a small subset of these spaces, understood to be approximately XX bays. Despite this, the Claimant has failed to clearly identify, demarcate, or distinguish the bays it purports to control, whether by ground markings, colour differentiation, numbering, or clear boundary signage.

3. There is no clear visual distinction between bays subject to different parking schemes. This creates obvious and foreseeable confusion for motorists, particularly genuine visitors and customers.

The Parking Event

1. On XX.XX.XXXX, I parked wholly within a clearly marked bay while attending Unit XYZ as a genuine customer.

2. There was nothing to indicate that the bay I used fell within a restricted area controlled by the Claimant or that it was subject to a permit-only scheme.

3. Where multiple parking regimes operate within the same trading estate, it is incumbent upon a parking operator to clearly identify which bays are controlled and on what terms. The Claimant has failed to do so.

Signage and Contractual Formation

1. The Claimant asserts that signage at the site was clear and capable of forming a binding contract. This is denied.

2. The signs at the site were small, poorly positioned, and contained dense text incapable of being read at the point of parking. There was no prominent warning of a £100 parking charge nor any clear statement that all bays were permit-only.

3. The signage falls well below the standard considered by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and fails the requirement for adequate notice as established in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163 and Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106.

4. Pursuant to sections 62, 68 and 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, consumer notices imposing financial sanctions must be transparent and prominent. The alleged terms were neither and are therefore not binding.

Permit Requirement

1. The Claimant alleges that all parking at the site is permit-only. This assertion is incorrect. Individual units within the trading estate retain control over their own parking spaces, and there are parking spaces on the estate which do not require a permit.

2. No signage explained how a visitor or customer might lawfully obtain a permit. In circumstances where no mechanism exists for compliance, the alleged terms are unreasonable and unenforceable.

Inconsistencies in the Claimant’s Evidence

1. The Claimant relies upon a demise plan and photographs exhibited as XXX to assert control over specific parking bays.

2. The demise plan does not mark or identify four parking spaces located adjacent to the loading bays.

3. However, the photographs submitted by the Claimant in XXX purport to show those same four parking spaces as being controlled and enforced by the Claimant.

4. This internal inconsistency between the Claimant’s own plan and photographic evidence demonstrates confusion as to the precise layout of the site and which individual parking spaces, if any, fall under the Claimant’s control.

5. If the Claimant itself cannot clearly identify or consistently evidence which bays are subject to its authority, it is unreasonable to expect a motorist to do so.

6. This contradiction further undermines the Claimant’s case on signage, authority, and contractual formation and supports the Defendant’s position that the site is confusing and incapable of forming a clear contract.

Landowner Authority

1. The Claimant bears the burden of proving that it had authority from the landowner to offer parking contracts and to litigate in its own name.

2. The agreement exhibited by the Claimant is generic and does not clearly identify the landowner, define the boundaries of the land, or unequivocally grant the Claimant authority to contract with motorists and pursue court proceedings.

3. The Claimant’s reliance on One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw is misplaced. It is a non-binding County Court appeal decision and does not remove the requirement for strict proof of authority.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

1. The Claimant asserts keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

2. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate strict compliance with POFA, including the mandatory wording, timescales, and statutory conditions required to transfer liability to a registered keeper.

3. In any event, POFA limits recovery from a keeper to the amount of the parking charge itself. The Claimant has exceeded that statutory cap.

Exaggerated and Unrecoverable Costs

1. The Claimant seeks an additional £70 described as costs or damages.

2. These sums were not incurred, represent double recovery, and are irrecoverable on the small claims track.

3. Government evidence confirms that the true cost of pre-action recovery in parking cases is minimal and far below the sums claimed. The additional £70 is unfair pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and contrary to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB).

Response to the Claimant’s Witness Statement

1. Rather than engaging with the substantive issues raised in my Defence, the Claimant’s witness statement seeks to dismiss it as “generic” and speculates about my understanding of the law.

2. Such assertions are irrelevant. What matters is whether the Claimant has proven its case on the balance of probabilities, which it has failed to do.

3. I am informed that the Claimant does not intend to attend the hearing. While attendance is a matter for the Claimant, reliance on a generic witness statement from a solicitor with no personal knowledge of the site necessarily limits the weight that can properly be attached to the Claimant’s evidence.

Conclusion

1. I was a genuine customer, parked wholly within a marked bay, on a site with multiple parking schemes and no clear demarcation of the bays controlled by the Claimant.

2. The Claimant has failed to prove that a contract was formed, that it had authority, that statutory conditions were met, or that the sums claimed are recoverable.

3. This claim exemplifies the type of confusing and poorly managed private parking arrangement that courts have repeatedly found incapable of forming binding contracts. The Claimant has not discharged the burden of proof, and the claim should be dismissed.

Statement of Truth