Gladstones minster baywatch hearing ws

Badparker1

Hi I have a hearing at end of the month and looking for advice on my ws. I was parked at Teesside Park on a hatched area from my point of view to even the space out. Please see attached photos I will also attach pictures of signs. Went back today and took a picture of same sign which has changed. Another member parked in the same spot as me and appealed successfully to popla I have that case number. Hopefully that will be useful?

Car1980

Can we see all the claim paperwork please. What did you put as your defence?

Castle

Claim form images reported as personal details disclosed.

Badparker1

My main defence was the fact I thought the space was marked out incorrectly. I just parked in the middle to even out both sides. This did not stop anyone parking either side of me. I also pointed out the £100 fine was excessive for a free car park.

Coupon-mad

This has no legs, so drop this point:

"I also pointed out the £100 fine was excessive for a free car park."

Your WS can state that the C only painted the usual wider space markings on one side of the bay, so any parent with children who needed to open both doors wide, would have no choice but to park as you did. The bay required more space on either side and this is exactly the type of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court mused over and said would be an unfair term, during the hearing in ParkingEye v Beavis.

And state that there were no t&cs signs at all in the parent & child bays. There never are!

Use the WS by @JackR1 as your base because it includes exhibits and links you need about the fake added £60 or £70. There is a full exhibit (evidence) list in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread in the section about WS and evidence stage.

Badparker1

Should I include the successful popla appeal by busterwolf? The lack of the word bay on first sign was the main defence I noticed that is now added to updated sign.
In my popla unsuccessful appeal the term bay was used several times ironically.

Coupon-mad

Someone else's POPLA appeal isn't relevant but you could mirror the POPLA Assessor's words, if you like.

But don't forget: there were no t&cs signs at all in the parent & child bays. There never are!

Badparker1

First attempt below feedback welcome.

Witness Statement (Defendant name)

1.1 I,(defendant name), of [defendant address], am the Defendant in this matter. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and knowledge. 

1.2 I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my evidence clearly, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. For the Court’s convenience, I have also included direct links where possible to the full text of any legal judgments mentioned.

1.3 I note for the Court that, at the time of writing, I have yet to receive the Claimant’s Witness Statement.

2.Response to the Alleged Breach

2.1 I parked my car as I did to allow easier access to the back passenger side. 

I believe the bay is marked out incorrectly as it only has additional space on one side, unlike all the other bays. The way I parked didn’t cause any obstruction to other drivers or any other bay being occupied. 

2.2 . The bay required more space on either side and this is exactly the type of 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court mused over and said would be an unfair term, during the hearing in ParkingEye v Beavis.

2.3 The original sign at the time of alleged breach didn’t actually say that a car must be parked within 'a bay', only within 'areas' - plural - which is an ambiguous term which MUST be interpreted in the way that best favours the consumer, by law (Consumer Rights Act 2015). 

3.Lack of Contract and Distinction from Beavis

3.1 In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that "adequate notice" of terms is essential. My case is fully distinguished from Beavis. In Beavis, the signs were large, prominent, and yellow/black.

3.2 Here, the signage was a "concealed pitfall or trap". Per Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, a driver cannot be bound by terms they had no reasonable opportunity to see. No terms and conditions are listed in parent and child signs. 

3.3 Since the PCN was issued, the location has had replacement signs installed. (Exhibit 1 and 2)). This retrospective change is a clear admission by the Claimant that the original signs were inadequate to form a contract.  

4 Inflated and Unlawful Charges

4.1 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 driver. (

blob:https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/1d590c41-3e88-4592-9b5a-33de1b291ed4

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 )

4.2 Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor “may not make a claim against the driver 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 driver liability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which is denied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.

4.3 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).

4.4 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'.

4.5 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.

4.6 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.

4.7 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.

5. Conclusion and Expenses

5.1 I respectfully request the Court dismiss the claim on the grounds of defective pleadings and lack of clear signage.

5.2 I request costs for my attendance (1 day off as I’m self employed) at the capped rate of £95.00, and Litigant in Person preparation costs due to the Claimant's unreasonable conduct.

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 a false statement verified by a statement of truth without honest belief in its truth.

Exhibits to File:

Exhibit 1

23/3/2025

blob:https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/8a9ca2fb-272f-49df-bcd5-6f6f5aa52e2c

Exhibit 2

2/8/2026

blob:https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/fe050c1f-904c-466d-a4ee-700f4bbe31a1

Badparker1

@Coupon-mad any thoughts before I send this. Would appreciate it thanks.

Coupon-mad

Didn't see the usual point seen in all WS here, challenging landowner authority?

Badparker1

How about this added as point 2.

2 The Claimants Authority to Issue Parking Charges

2.1 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. 

2.2 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. 

2:3 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.