Claim form Gladstones

GladysStone

Hello all

I was dealing with this alleged parking charge via ftla unfortunately the
moderator left for reasons unknown to me which left me in a quandary
as supposed to get back to forum when letter of claim came.

[Image removed by Forum Team]

[Image removed by Forum Team]

I cannot post ftla link search: Horizon pcn Millenium Retail Park greenwich

However someone put me onto this forum and I hope you will be able to help
me.

Pcn received from Horizon, fee of £70, £42 if paid within 14 days,
contested went to popla. Popla decision went against me. 2nd letter Fee £70. 3rd letter fee £80.

Then 6 letters from Debt recovery plus. Fee of £145 no contact.

New “enforcement agent” Empira sent 2 letters. Fee of £150 no
contact.

I then received the letter before claim from Gladstones. Fee £150. It
contained a warning regarding the issue of court proceedings with the
following charges,

Amount due
£150

Estimated
interest £0

Estimated
court fee £35

Estimated
solicitor cost £50

Estimated
total £235

I again disputed pcn and asked for (amongst other things) the evidence pack
with regard to PAP. I also asked for hard copies to be sent to me. I
received an email from them with this reply.

“Please find attached the Evidence Pack which we trust to be
self-explanatory. 

Our Client is therefore satisfied the case against you should proceed
unless the debt owing of £150.00 is discharged in full. To ensure no
further action is taken, you should make payment” etc.

The evidence pack contained copies of the 3 pcn's sent and 4 photos of
vehicle and numberplate and nothing else.

I have now received the claim form dated 16th September
(received on 25th) the fee now is £253.46.

Has any of the above helped my case Regarding PAP and false admin
charges. There has been no admission of driver.

My next step is to reply within 14 days via mcol.

My questions are:

Do I continue with no admission of driver. From the pcn, is relying on
no admission a lost cause as I believe its POFA compliant?

I am doing this on behalf of someone so whose details shall I put into
mcol regarding government gateway. I already have a gateway account,
the driver has not.

The defence, I can ask in step 8 of mcol thread to allow further two
weeks to be added. I have not yet formulated a defence as yet for
this part of the process.

What would be the difference between a defence written to mcol (or next
stage) and the witness statement?

I can supply more details of popla decisions my reply etc.

Thanks in advance.

Gr1pr

The defendant named on that claim form logs into MCOL, not a 3rd party, only THE DEFENDANT

The defendant should complete the AOS online stage ASAP to gain extra time, as explained in the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum, then start adapting the defence template in announcements near the top of the forum

As for a WS , the defendant submits it in a few months time to their local civil court, ( not MCOL ) have a look at the excellent one by member JackR1, compared to his actual Defence

Coupon-mad

The Defendant simply gets a Govt Gateway account for this purpose.

As to defence, click on any of the Gladstones claim threads you'll find that I posted links to, on page 13 of this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81616396#Comment_81616396

You'll see all the defences mention the fact the signs said £70 but Gladstones has made it £80 + £70. £150 is enhanced, unjustified, not contractual and thus, unrecoverable.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 16/09/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 05/10/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 19/10/26

GladysStone

Thanks for replies.

Will register with mcol and if I may put up my draft defence for your perusal when finished.

Cheers

Gladys

Coupon-mad

Yes but you can just copy one from the link I gave you. There's a dozen or so there.

GladysStone

First draft

Copied defence template have put whole thing in to make sure its the right one to use. In bold are my words added to para 2, 3 and 9. Not sure if what I put in 9 should be there or in para 1 or my own in 3. I have other discrepancies, can they be added to witness statement?

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.

2.
The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum
claimed, or at all. Is this being persued as
registered keeper under POFA ? The delay in bringing
proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material
evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has
little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that
they were the registered keeper.

3.
There is no reliable evidence to support the allegation in the Pre
action protocol evidence pack that Gladstones sent to me. Under
5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor
must – (a) provide the document or information; or (b) explain why
the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of
receipt of the request. I asked for disclosure of documents regarding the car park
management plan. (It is understood that planning and management
documentation associated with Millennium Retail Park Greenwich has
specified that initial overstays would receive warning notices
rather than immediate parking charge notices). Also contemporaneous
photographs of the inadequate signage at the entrance to the retail
park. Furthermore, I dispute the notion that the signage at the
Tesco car park creates a binding contractual agreement for the
imposition of a parking charge notice (PCN) of £70, as suggested by
the claimant. The signs fail to adequately inform motorists of any
clear contractual terms or the consequences for failing to comply,
and therefore do not create an enforceable contract. I respectfully
request that the claim be struck out due to these deficiencies in
both evidence and legal basis.

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 fromBeavis.

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))'. The Claimant's own documentation contains material inconsistencies. The original Horizon Parking notice issued in respect of the alleged incident stated a parking charge of £70, subject to the stated discounted amount. A subsequent reminder demanded £80,the claim form states £80.Accordingly, insofar as the Claimant relies upon keeper liability under Schedule 4, the sum claimed exceeds the statutory maximum recoverable from the keeper under paragraph 4(5). The Claimant is put to strict proof of the legal basis upon which it seeks £80 from the Defendant and
£70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms andconditions 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))'.

cheers

Coupon-mad

In a defence, all the "I" and "me" need to be changed to the third person: the Defendant.

And you haven't mentioned what i advised you to mention:

"You'll see all the defences mention the fact the signs said £70 but Gladstones has made it £80 + £70. £150 is enhanced, unjustified, not contractual and thus, unrecoverable."

You said "the Popla decision went against me." Did you admit to driving?

Was the NTK POFA compliant, or not?

patient_dream

£70.00 contractual costs?

This fabrication by GLADSTONES is simply their version of DOUBLE RECOVERY (NOT ALLOWED)

These so called legals all have their own version

1: DAMAGES

2: DEBT RECOVERY

3: ADMIN COSTS

WHICH ONE IS RIGHT ? NONE OF THEM, it is just a fabrication to make money that is not owed

Most judges will not allow this fake and also interest at 8%

This really is a COWBOY industry

GladysStone

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152014#Comment_82152014

Will amend the "I, me"

What I put in paragraph 9 is no good in regard to what you said to mention?

There has been no admittance of who was driving. This was POPLA decision (my paragraphs as it came out in one block)

"Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor
Name

[Removed by Forum Team]

Assessor
summary of operator case

The parking operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for
exceeding the maximum stay period.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant has raised the following grounds, which have been
summarised:

• The notice to keeper is not compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the operator issues a vague
and ambiguous invitation without stating the 28 day period or the
conditions under which keeper liability arises

• The statement that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge
is misleading as they only have the right if they comply with all of
Schedule 4, which they have failed to do so

• The notice to keeper wrongly implies that it is necessary to identify the driver, as there
is no legal requirement

• The signage is inadequate and non-compliant with the Code of Practice and there is no prominent
display of the parking charge amount

• The signs are difficult to read, especially at dusk, and the font used for the charge is
significantly smaller than other information

• The operator has not shown that they have landowner authority to issue PCN’s and
requires a full, unredacted copy of the contract

• they have breached the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan as
no warning letter has been issued

• the operator sent a generic response and failed to engage with the issue or address the core
points raised After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence pack,
the appellant reiterates their grounds of appeal in further detail
regarding PoFA 2012, signage, landowner authority, the management
plan and the operators response to their appeal. The appellant has
provided images of the entrance and the sign as evidence towards
their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making my
decision.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park.
The appellant says that the notice to keeper is not compliant with
the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the operator issues a
vague and ambiguous invitation without stating the 28 day period or
the conditions under which keeper liability arises.

The statement that they have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking
charge is misleading as they only have the right if they comply with
all of Schedule 4, which they have failed to do so. The Protection of
Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to
transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the
driver or hirer is not identified. Parking operators have to follow
certain rules including warning the registered keeper that they will
be liable if the parking operator is not provided with the name and
address of the driver.

As the driver has not been identified on the date of the contravention, I am considering keeper liability and will
ensure that the Parking Charge Notice issued complies with Section 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. After reviewing the Notice to Keeper document supplied within the operator’s evidence, I can see that the keeper was invited to supply the driver details to the operator within the 28-day period, beginning with the day after that
on which the notice was issued. As this information has not been supplied, then the operator reserves the right to pursue the keeperof the vehicle. In accordance, I will be considering keeper liability for this charge. The notice to keeper wrongly implies that it is necessary to identify the driver, as there is no legal requirement.
Section (2) (e) of PoFA 2012 states, ‘’state that the creditor
does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid
parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the
vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a
current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on
to the driver;’’.

Upon review of the PCN, I can see that this
states, ‘’As we (the creditor) do not know the driver’s name or
current postal address, you are now invitied to either pay the
charge, or if you were not the driver at the time, please provide us
with the driver’s full name and current postal address using the
contact details overleaf within 28 days and pass this Parking Charge
to them’’.

As the required information has been provided, I am
satisfied that this complies with PoFA 2012. The appellant says that
the signage is inadequate and non-compliant with the Code of Practice
and there is no prominent display of the parking charge amount. The
British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which set
the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 19.2
of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that
make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land.

In this case, the parking operator’s evidence shows that an entrance sign is
present within an appropriate place and makes clear that terms are
applicable. Section 19.3 states that parking operators need to have
signage that clearly set out the terms. After reviewing the signage
provided by both parties, I can see that these clearly state that
terms are applicable. Bold text makes it clear that the maximum stay
is 5 hours and any breaches would result in a £70 PCN being issued.
The parking operator has also provided a site map and multiple images
which show that signs are placed throughout site ensuring that
motorists can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage
complies with the Code of Practice.

I note that the appellant says that the signs are difficult to read, especially at dusk, and the
font used for the charge is significantly smaller than other
information. Appendix B talks about signs being always readable and
understandable, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if
parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. Within the
operator’s evidence, I can see signs that are located either on or
within close proximity of a lighting pole, ensuring that they are
visible in hours of dusk. As the ANPR pictures on the PCN show that
the driver had their headlights on at the time of the contravention,
which would have provided additional visibility. I am therefore
satisfied that the signage would have been visible during the hours
of darkness and the appellant had the opportunity to read and
understand the terms and conditions before entering the contract, in
accordance with the BPA Code of Practice, Appendix B. I note that the
appellant states the amount of the charge was not appropriately
brought to their attention. The appeal reasons raised have led me to
consider the relevant case law of ParkingEye v Beavis. The Supreme
Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case,
ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have
all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless
were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the
charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the
region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the
fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on
the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a
free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the
principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these
principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss
is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct
loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge
amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the
signage.

After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am
satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in
the region of £85 and therefore allowable. The appellant says that
the operator has not shown that they have landowner authority to
issue PCN’s and requires a full, unredacted copy of the contract.
The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets
the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 14.1
of the Code states that where controlled land is being managed on
behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a
parking charge can be issued. In this case, the document supplied by
the operator shows that they have sufficient authority to issue PCN’s
on the site in question. The appellant states that the operator has
breached the Royal Borough of Greenwich Car Park Management Plan as
no warning letter has been issued. However, POPLA assess all appeals
with the relevant code of practice. Therefore, the Royal Borough of
Greenwich Car Park Management Plan would not make a material
difference to the outcome of the decision.

The appellant says that the operator sent a generic response and failed to engage with the
issue or address the core points raised. POPLA’s role is to
determine whether the PCN was issued correctly. It is not within
POPLA’s remit to comment on nor investigate the operator’s appeal
process or any customer service issues. Any further dissatisfaction
regarding this will need to be raised with the parking operator
directly. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the
appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail.
Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already
addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have
no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments
to make about these grounds at this stage. Based on the evidence
provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that a
breach occurred as the driver exceeded the maximum stay. I conclude
that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the appeal is
refused."

I will post again the original ntk as it was taken down because of not editing qr code as to whether its compliant or not. As they have inflated fine does that now mean its not compliant in regard to POFA?

Thanks for everyones help

Car1980

As the ANPR pictures on the PCN show that the driver had their headlights on at the time of the contravention,
which would have provided additional visibility

So, there can be no such thing as a poorly visible sign at night then 🤣 Maybe we should all enter retail parks with our lights off!

By the way, you've left loads of identifying info on the image