Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • psdie
    • By psdie 18th Jul 18, 10:15 PM
    • 107Posts
    • 66Thanks
    Link Parking / Gladstones - unclear signage Court Defence by 23 July
    • #1
    • 18th Jul 18, 10:15 PM
    Link Parking / Gladstones - unclear signage Court Defence by 23 July 18th Jul 18 at 10:15 PM
    Hi all - thank you for the amazing work by the kind volunteers here!

    I need urgent advice please for drafting my Court Defence filing (orientated around conflicting and unclear signage), due by Saturday 21st (EDIT: actually probably Mon 23rd, as weekend) unfortunately. Sorry for the late notice - just back from holiday.

    I've been lurking here for a while picking up advice for a Link Parking (LP) PCN received in Sep last year - I filed an appeal with LP disputing the PCN entirely, on the basis of:
    1. A sign right next to the entrance / parking space stating that restricted days were Mon-Sat, meaning unrestricted on the Sunday parking date, in accordance with DfT sign regulations. I much later came to suspect this sign relates to a couple of council-run parking spaces adjacent to the restricted area, but this is impossible to know - the sign is literally next to the space that was parked in!
    2. I provided photos of the above to LP in the appeal, along with photos showing the entrance sign (which doesn't mention LP) fully obscured by parked vehicles, and another sign obscured by hedges well away from the parking space near the entrance. No operator signs were legible for these reasons when entering the car park, particularly late evening at the time of parking (no sign illumination) - only the unrestricted sign was clearly visible.

    Despite the above, LP refused outright to hear my appeal unless I agreed to identify the driver - which I've refused as I understand there's no legal requirement. I did however provide all details necessary to authenticate myself as an authorised representative - full PCN and personal contact details, etc. I also requested the usual evidence of land owner authority etc, plus acknowledgement of a DPA Section 10 notice to not distribute my personal data, which they have continually ignored to-date.

    I received a POFA NtK from LP in November and replied clearly setting out the appeal grounds again (without identifying the driver), with further gathered photos, and repeated my request for documentation and acknowledgement of the Section 10 notice. They sent a generic reply (given the signs are clearly inadequate and conflicting):

    The vehicle was parked in a manner which attracted a charge as it was parked whilst not fully displaying a valid permit. It is the drivers responsibility to ensure they meet the parking requirements. Our signs clearly advertise the parking requirements and by not meeting them you accepted our charge.

    Given the facts we are rejecting your appeal. We note that you previously refused to comply with our standard appeals process. If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).
    I received a Letter Before Claim from Gladstones in March, with the original £100 PCN amount increased by £60 "claimed by our Client for its time spent and resource facilitating the recovery of the charge. The amount is pre-determined and nominal contribution to our Client's losses as a direct result of your non-payment.". I completed their online PAP reply (and sent them an e-mail with full appeal thread) reiterating that the claim was fully disputed, the key reasons, and highlighting that LP refused to hear my pre-POFA appeal or provide requested evidence of authority.

    I also stated that I understood adding additional collection fees is expressly disallowed by POFA, according to advice on this forum - is that correct, and the max they can claim is the original PCN amount?

    Gladstones didn't reply. I received a MCOL Claim Form in June - £160, plus £8+ interest (continuing till judgement at £0.04/day), plus £25 Court fee, plus £50 "Legal representative's costs". Again, are they allowed to add legal fees, court fees, interest - or are these generally disallowed by the court in POFA cases if I have followed PAP rules (which I believe I have)? Clarification particularly appreciated on fees, as they increase the amount from £100 to £240+! If any part is disallowed / unlikely to be allowed, what do I do to enforce this?

    I now need to submit a Court Defence filing by Saturday, having already submitted an Acknowledgement of Service to the court opting to defend in full, which I'm prepared to do in person at my local Small Claims court.

    I'm going to submit this post now as it's getting late, and add further detail - pointers to the best template Defence to start with would be much appreciated, along with any other advice. There's tonnes of threads here with conflicting and sometimes outdated advice (e.g., those highlighted in Irrelevant Defences), so I'd appreciate help.

    Many thanks in advance!
    Last edited by psdie; 20-07-2018 at 1:30 AM. Reason: Add additional info
Page 4
    • Castle
    • By Castle 13th Oct 18, 8:42 AM
    • 1,926 Posts
    • 2,619 Thanks
    Paragraph 10-"claim for interest" makes no sense as it refers to a claim being issued on 5 August 2016!
    • bargepole
    • By bargepole 13th Oct 18, 10:02 AM
    • 2,434 Posts
    • 6,974 Thanks
    Mid Dec = Hearing date at Magistrates Court
    Originally posted by psdie
    Why is this at the Magistrates' Court? Are you accused of a crime as well?

    I think you need to read that notice more carefully - these hearings are held at the County Court.

    I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 34, lost 10), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and am a Graduate member of CILEx, studying towards a Fellowship (equivalent to solicitor) in Civil Litigation. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
    • psdie
    • By psdie 15th Oct 18, 12:57 AM
    • 107 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    Yep is County Court - lists Magistrates Court within the address because same building - I've updated my notes (and the post) to refer to it correctly, thanks!
    Last edited by psdie; 15-10-2018 at 1:10 AM.
    • psdie
    • By psdie 15th Oct 18, 1:02 AM
    • 107 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    Paragraph 10-"claim for interest" makes no sense as it refers to a claim being issued on 5 August 2016!
    Originally posted by Castle
    Well spotted thank you Castle! And a good thing it's wrong as otherwise should have been redacted. I can confirm that's over a year before the PCN issue date (wrong day and month too), so great evidence for the Judge that Gladrags haven't applied reasonable care
    • psdie
    • By psdie 15th Oct 18, 1:35 AM
    • 107 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    Summary strikeout / Parking Bill 2018
    My notes say: once court has been assigned, can potentially write letter to them requesting "summary strikeout with no hearing" at no charge under "CPR Rule 1.4(2)(c) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 5.1, namely to summarily dispose of issues which do not need full investigation and trial. The courtís powers include striking out a claim (or part of it) under CPR Rule 3.4 and Summary Judgment under CPR Rule 24.

    That's based on this post from Loadsofchildren. Worthwhile do you think, or waste of time?

    Also, has there been any progress or useful new quotes RE Sir Greg Knight MP's 'Parking (Code of Practice) Bill', which I referenced in my Defence? Hope that's progressing nicely so we can put an end to nonsense claims like this one from Gladrags!
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 15th Oct 18, 6:37 AM
    • 3,664 Posts
    • 5,999 Thanks
    Summary Judgment under CPR Rule 24 has always been available without the Parking Bill but there is a court fee attached to getting it. Courts are not free.

    Have only even see two companies use it / try to use it. The first is ParkingEye and the other is TPS (though that died a death)

    But if you have the money, then try it.
    If you want to win - avoid losing first. Here are a few examples
    1. Failing to Acknowledge or Defend
    2. Template defences that say nothing
    3. Forgetting about the Witness Statement
    • psdie
    • By psdie 15th Oct 18, 9:52 PM
    • 107 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    Hi IamE - Loadsofchildren mentioned the option to ask the court to strike the claim out of its own violition:

    There is no harm in asking the court to strike out. But the application fee is £255 which is excessive. If you won you'd get these costs back. You apply on Form N244 (google it you'll find a link) and you have to include a draft order saying what order you want the court to make (you can copy this from the orders which are on the Prankster's blog (don't forget to include a costs order) and your evidence in support (which is basically your letter).

    HOWEVER here is the good news: Under the CPR the court has the power to make an order of its own volition, without an application. Alternatively it has the power to treat a letter from you as an application without requiring a formal N244 application (and the fee). So yes, write to the court and ask it to make an order - it's worth trying.
    That's what I'm wondering is worth trying in my situation - agreed £255 for formal N244 request is too much of a gamble!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

270Posts Today

2,284Users online

Martin's Twitter