PREMIER PARKING /GLADSTONES COURT CLAIM

ks7862580

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82132117#Comment_82132117

Thankyou for your reply.

So with the issue of me driving first and then my wife getting in the driver side. Does that still class as me being the driver and registered keeper. Because I briefly remember there is a photo of me getting out the car. But still being blocked in by car in front.

Gr1pr

The Driver that parked the vehicle ( that entered the controller area ), is deemed to be the driver, who they allege is in breach of the parking contract on that private property

The person named on the V5c document is the Registered Keeper

ks7862580

Hi. Could someone please check this

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4 and the relevant Practice Directions, failing to state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false ‘fee’ or damages sum of £70 to the original Parking Charge of £100. This sum is not legally recoverable merely because it has been added to the claim and constitutes an attempt at double recovery. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual and legal basis for this additional sum. The Defendant also disputes the recovery of interest insofar as it is calculated on sums which are not legally recoverable. The court is invited to consider whether the additional sum amounts to an abuse of process and/or unreasonable conduct and to exercise its case management powers accordingly.

2. The allegation is denied and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant was the registered keeper and was also the driver of the vehicle on the material date. The Defendant has limited recollection of the precise circumstances due to the passage of time, but recalls the material events as set out below.

3. The Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked in breach of the alleged terms. On 2 February 2026, the Defendant drove into the car park intending to attend an appointment at the Pakistani Consulate. The car park was congested, with approximately two or three vehicles ahead of the Defendant obstructing the route around the central island. The access route was narrow and, with vehicles parked on either side, vehicles could not readily pass one another. The Defendant therefore decided not to leave the vehicle in the car park and temporarily stopped in order to alight and allow his wife to take the driver’s seat and drive the vehicle out of the car park. The vehicle was not left parked or abandoned outside a marked bay. The parking attendant remained seated in his vehicle and did not approach or speak to the Defendant. From the Defendant’s recollection, the photographs relied upon by the Claimant were taken from the attendant’s vehicle and from some distance. The Defendant subsequently appealed the Parking Charge Notice. Liability is denied.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a contractual term was breached, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the terms allegedly relied upon and the circumstances in which they were allegedly accepted. For a contract to arise, there must be an offer, acceptance and consideration. The Defendant did not understand that temporarily stopping in the circumstances described above, for the purpose of changing drivers and leaving the car park, would constitute parking in breach of a contractual term. The Claimant is put to strict proof of contemporaneous photographs of the vehicle, the relevant parking bay, the surrounding area and all signage relied upon. The Defendant further puts the Claimant to strict proof that the alleged £100 charge and the requirement to park wholly within a bay were sufficiently prominent and clearly communicated to a motorist before any alleged contract was formed. The Defendant reserves the right to rely upon the Consumer Rights Act 2015 insofar as any term relied upon is alleged to be unfair or insufficiently transparent.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing and authority to bring this claim. The Claimant must establish its legal interest in the land and/or its authority from the landowner to enter into contracts with motorists, issue Parking Charges, obtain keeper information, and conduct litigation in its own name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contemporaneous landowner agreement, including its dates, terms, schedules and any site plan identifying the relevant area of land.

6. To impose a Parking Charge for an alleged contractual breach, the Claimant must establish the existence and applicability of a contractual term, adequate notice of that term and the charge, and that the circumstances relied upon actually constituted the alleged breach. The Defendant's case is that the vehicle was temporarily stopped in circumstances where the Defendant was attempting to leave the car park after encountering congestion and an obstructed/narrow route. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant's temporary stopping constituted the contractual breach alleged in the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant also puts the Claimant to strict proof that the alleged term requiring a vehicle to be parked wholly within a bay was sufficiently prominent and applicable to the circumstances in which the vehicle was temporarily stopped.

7. Attention is drawn to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Defendant accepts that the Supreme Court held that a parking charge can, in appropriate circumstances, be commercially justified and enforceable. However, that decision turned on the particular facts of that case, including the prominently displayed terms, the free two-hour parking arrangement and the legitimate interests identified by the court. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the circumstances of this case, including the signage, the alleged breach and the circumstances in which the vehicle was temporarily stopped, are sufficiently analogous. The Defendant also relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB) insofar as it is relevant to the separate additional sum sought above the original parking charge. In that case, the court considered an enhanced sum added after the original parking charge and expressed the view that the additional £60 appeared penal in nature. The Defendant submits that the Claimant must establish the legal and contractual basis for the additional £70 claimed in this case rather than simply adding it to the original £100 charge.

8. The Defendant notes that the Government has been developing a statutory Private Parking Code of Practice under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. The Government's consultation published in 2025 considered, amongst other matters, the use of debt recovery fees and whether such fees should be capped or banned. The Defendant does not rely upon the proposed Government Code as presently binding law, but refers to the Government's consultation as evidence that the treatment of additional debt recovery fees in the private parking sector has been the subject of governmental review. The Claimant is nevertheless put to strict proof of the contractual and legal basis for the £70 additional sum claimed in this particular case.

9. If the Claimant seeks to rely upon keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant is put to strict proof that every applicable statutory requirement has been complied with. In particular, the Claimant must establish that the relevant notice was compliant with the statutory requirements and that the sum sought from the keeper does not exceed the amount of the unpaid parking charge specified in the applicable notice. Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) provides that the maximum sum recoverable from a keeper is the amount specified in the notice as the unpaid parking charges. The Defendant further disputes the recoverability of the additional £70 sum and puts the Claimant to strict proof of its legal basis.

10. The Defendant seeks such fixed costs as are permitted under CPR 27.14 and reserves the right to rely upon CPR 27.14(2)(g) in relation to unreasonable conduct. The Defendant also reserves the right to seek any further costs that the court is permitted to award where applicable.

Below is a reply from ChatGPT

"A couple of things I deliberately changed
I didn't include some of the more aggressive wording from the MSE template, such as saying the parking industry is operating a “deliberate business model of systemic abuse”. That's not necessary to defend your particular claim and could distract from the factual issues.
I also haven't claimed that Beavis automatically makes the £70 unrecoverable. Instead, I've made Premier/Gladstones prove the contractual and legal basis for that £70. Beavis is the Supreme Court authority, but its outcome depended heavily on the facts and signage in that case. �
Supreme Court
And your paragraph 3 is now based on your actual account, which is important because CPR 16.5 says a defendant who denies an allegation and puts forward a different version of events should state that version."

ks7862580

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82139677#Comment_82139677

@Coupon-mad thankyou

Coupon-mad

Awful changes by terrible ChatGPT.

It's even removed mention of HHJ Moloney from para 1 like a numpty!

Daft AI. This is plain stupid of the bot because Beavis ISN'T only about signs and it certainly DOES make any added DRA costs unrecoverable:

"I also haven't claimed that Beavis automatically makes the £70 unrecoverable. Instead, I've made Premier/Gladstones prove the contractual and legal basis for that £70."

And the Template defence doesn't have this sentence: “deliberate business model of systemic abuse” so where did that come from? Bin that version,

Use the Template defence.

Do not try to reinvent the wheel!

ks7862580

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'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

1. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant was the registered keeper and was also the driver of the vehicle on the material date. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has limited recollection of the precise circumstances due to the passage of time, but recalls the material events as set out in paragraph 3 below.

3. The Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked in breach of the alleged terms. On 2 February 2026, the Defendant drove into the car park intending to attend an appointment at the Pakistani Consulate. The car park was congested, with approximately two or three vehicles ahead of the Defendant obstructing the route around the central island. The access route was narrow and, with vehicles parked on either side, vehicles could not readily pass one another. The Defendant therefore decided not to leave the vehicle in the car park and temporarily stopped in order to alight and allow his wife to take the driver's seat and drive the vehicle out of the car park. The vehicle was not left parked or abandoned outside a marked bay. The parking attendant remained seated in his vehicle and did not approach or speak to the Defendant. From the Defendant's recollection, the photographs relied upon by the Claimant were taken from the attendant's vehicle and from some distance. The Defendant subsequently appealed the Parking Charge Notice. Liability is denied.

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 Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(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 references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control '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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.

@Coupon-mad sorry for tagging again. I hope this one is better

MSE_ForumTeam5

The post above has been moved here from the template defence thread

ks7862580

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82144630#Comment_82144630

Sorry I dont know what you mean.

Car1980

You posted it in the template defence thread for some reason and admin have moved it here.

ks7862580

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82145385#Comment_82145385

Oh i am sorry. . I didn't mean to