Link Parking / Gladstones - unclear signage Court Defence by 23 July

a. The Claimant's solicitors (Gladstones) are known to be a serial issuer of tens of thousands of automated generic claims similar to this one (so called 'robo claims'), with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details, or even checking for a valid Cause of Action. HMCS have reported identifying thousands of similar poorly pleaded claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court and others throughout England & Wales.

i. It is understood that Gladstones are under an active investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority as a result of its poor conduct. The firm was one of a handful specifically highlighted for unfair practices by MPs during 2018 debates of Sir Greg Knight MP's 'Parking (Code of Practice) Bill' in Parliament.

ii. The Defendant argues that the Claimant's conduct in aggressively pursuing unrepresented consumers through the small claims track using an automated system provided by their solicitors is against the public interest and not something the courts should support.

b. In common with other 'robo claims', the Particulars are sparse and fail to state what specific "terms of parking" are claimed to have been breached - i.e., no proper Cause of Action. A parking charge could be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge; each is treated differently in law and requires a different defence.

c. The Particulars fail to provide a copy of the alleged contract or general terms as required under PD part 16 paragraphs 7.3(1) and (2). The wording of any contract will naturally be vital, and a copy of the claimed terms has never been provided to the Defendant.

d. The Particulars state a claim amount substantially higher than those on the PCN and Notice to Keeper (NTK), including unrecoverable charges addressed later in this Defence. The charges are ambiguously described with a menu of choices ("Parking Charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable" - differing from prior descriptions), with no breakdown of the amount.

e. For these reasons, the Defendant is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence.

i. The Claimant's solicitors are understood to habitually delay providing detailed claims that can be properly responded to until late in proceedings - an abuse of process that significantly disadvantages unrepresented Defendants and shows contempt for the court.

ii. Should the Claimant add to or expand their Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings, such as through their Witness Statement, the Defendant asks the Court permission to amend or supplement his Defence, and/or to limit the Claimant only to unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

iii. Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information (some of which has already been requested by the Defendant but the Claimant has refused to provide), after which the Defendant be allowed reasonable time to file an updated Defence:

* Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and a clear description of the exact alleged cause of action;
* A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place at the time of the incident;
* How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time);
* Whether the Defendant is being pursued as alleged driver, subject to strict proof, or as Registered Keeper.
* Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter to provide strict proof;
* The full legal identity of the landholder, with their contact details and a copy of the Claimant's contract (or full chain of contracts) with the landholder.
* If charges over and above the initial charge are still being claimed, the specific claimed basis for these additions;
* If interest charges are still being claimed, the detailed basis and calculation.

c. The IPC's Code of Practice Part B ("Establishing Yourself as the 'Creditor'") 1.1 states clearly:

"If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the 'Creditor' within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner's behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions."