Gladstones Claim Form

[therealrjp]

I am following on from a post I created some time ago at FTLA as replies have slowed down and I would still be very grateful for some advice.

I have now received a Claim Form and have begun to create a defence based on other posts I've found. I am unsure if the format is correct, so please let me know if it is not. I am also obviously unsure of the content of my defence, but the general basis is on the lack of any consideration period given the time the vehicle was stopped was less than 2 minutes.

If it is relevant, the driver has not been identified.

Particulars of Claim: 

The driver of vehicle registration **** breached the prominently displayed terms and conditions of parking at UXBRIDGE IND EST WALLINGFORD RD SALISBURY RD ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ - ARUNDEL RD UXBRIDGE UB8 2RZ. on 19/05/2025 by PARKING IN NO PARKING AREA. The signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract accepted by the act of parking, In the event of breach, the driver agreed to pay the specified parking charge.
The Parking Charge Notices remain unpaid after 28 days and the Defendant, as driver and/or registered keeper, is liable for the outstanding sums. Despite demands, payment has not been made.
The Claimant therefore claims £100 for the PCN, £70.00 contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with statutory interest of £17.01 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% per annum, accruing at £0.04 per day until judgment or earlier payment.

_____

I have read that the PoC from Gladstones are often defective. Is that the case here or have they included everything properly?

My defence so far is as follows:

1. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and that any debt is owed.
2. Time-stamped images supplied by the Claimant show the vehicle was stopped for less than two minutes. The BPA Code of Practice states that “they must allow a consideration period of appropriate duration”. The concept of such a period is to allow the driver time to read the signage and decide if they want to accept, not to interpret while they are driving past.
3. PCM (UK) v Bull and UKCPS v Masterson establish that signage that is entirely forbidding in nature does not make a contractual offer and simply states a prohibition. As there is no offer, the driver could not have accepted a contract by stopping.
4. “Stopping” and “Parking” are distinct actions. Homeguard Services Ltd v Jopson (2016) ruled that “merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it”. The Claimant alleges that the driver had parked the vehicle, however, this is refuted by their own supplied images showing the vehicle stopped for a brief period of time while the driver remained inside the vehicle. This cannot be interpreted as an intention to enter into a parking contract.


Once again, I am unsure if this is correct. I appreciate any advice.

[b789]

Welcome to the forum @therealrjp. Before I continue with this case (I was assisting with it on FTLA at the time) I would like to see the N1SDT Claim Form with the actual Particulars of Claim (PoC) and the evidence they used when you made your POPLA appeal.

I need to see the signs they say were in situ at the time and any other photographic evidence they relied on as well as the supposed "contract" with the landowner. This location is a notorious scam site and PPS have been defeated numerous times with claims for alleged breaches at this location.

Once I have seen the photos and the landowner contract or letter of authority, I will give you a suitable defence that you can use. What you have posted for your defence is not adequate.

Just to make sure you are aware of defence deadlines with a claim date of 16 September...

Deemed date of service (issue date + 5 calendar days) Monday 21 Sep 2026
Acknowledgment of Service deadline (14 days after service) 4pm Monday 05 Oct 2026
Defence deadline if no AoS (14 days after service) 4pm Monday 05 Oct 2026
Defence deadline if AoS filed (28 days after service) 4pm Monday 19 Oct 2026

So, for now, I would only submit the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) and tick that you will be defending the whole claim. The defence can be submitted later.

[b789]

@therealrjp, thanks. As I said above, I don't want to give you a final defence until I have seen the evidence I asked for, particularly the signage, PPS's photographs and the landowner contract/authority.

However, having now seen the Particulars of Claim and your proposed defence, there are several points to clarify.

I would not base your defence primarily on the argument that the vehicle was stopped for less than two minutes and was therefore within a consideration period. That is certainly relevant, but there are stronger contractual and keeper-liability issues which also need to be pleaded.

Gladstones' Particulars of Claim specifically allege that:

"The signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract accepted by the act of parking".

That is important because they have expressly pleaded a contractual offer and acceptance by "parking". They will therefore have to prove that the signage actually made an offer capable of acceptance and that what occurred amounted to parking and acceptance of that offer.

From the evidence previously supplied at POPLA, the sign apparently states:

"No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time."

That is plainly relevant to whether there was actually any contractual offer to park. If the sign prohibits parking, waiting, loading and unloading altogether, there is a serious question as to what contractual permission PPS says it was offering the driver in exchange for £100. That is where the prohibitory-signage argument comes in.

The very short stop is also relevant, but I would not state that Jopson establishes that stopping and parking are always legally distinct actions. The judgment is more nuanced than that. It supports the proposition that merely stopping a vehicle does not necessarily amount to parking and that this is a question of fact and degree. Here, PPS's own photographs apparently show a stop lasting only around 90 seconds to two minutes, with the driver remaining in the vehicle. That evidence will be important.

The consideration-period argument should also be retained, particularly because PPS appear to have previously accepted in their own POPLA evidence that:

"it is reasonable to expect [a motorist] to stop in proximity to a sign for the purpose of reviewing the terms before deciding whether to remain parked."

They cannot easily reconcile that position with an allegation that the very act of stopping to consider the terms immediately constitutes acceptance and breach of those terms.

There is also an important point missing entirely from your proposed defence. The driver has not been identified. Gladstones have pleaded that you are liable "as driver and/or registered keeper". Those are two entirely different routes to liability. You should not admit to being the driver and there is no general legal presumption that the registered keeper was driving.

If PPS wants to pursue you as keeper instead, it must establish that it complied with all the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We already challenged the NtK at POPLA under paragraph 9(2)(a), including its failure properly to specify the required "period of parking". That therefore also needs revisiting once I have the original NtK and evidence in front of me.

There is also the additional £70 "contractual costs" claimed on top of the £100 PCN. That should not simply be accepted because Gladstones have inserted it into the Particulars of Claim. They will need to establish the contractual and legal basis upon which that additional sum is actually recoverable.

As for the Particulars of Claim themselves, I don't think there is much mileage in trying to argue that they are so inadequately pleaded that this should become a major defence point. They are considerably more detailed than some of the usual Gladstones boilerplate PoCs. There are better substantive points to attack.

So, do not submit the defence you have drafted. You have plenty of time because, assuming you file the AoS as advised, your defence deadline is 4pm on 19 October.

For now, just get the AoS submitted and post the evidence I requested. Once I have seen the actual signage, photographs, NtK and supposed landowner authority, I can put together a properly pleaded defence based on what PPS can actually prove rather than us having to make assumptions about their evidence.

[therealrjp]

Welcome to the forum @therealrjp. Before I continue with this case (I was assisting with it on FTLA at the time) I would like to see the N1SDT Claim Form with the actual Particulars of Claim (PoC) and the evidence they used when you made your POPLA appeal.

I need to see the signs they say were in situ at the time and any other photographic evidence they relied on as well as the supposed "contract" with the landowner. This location is a notorious scam site and PPS have been defeated numerous times with claims for alleged breaches at this location.

Once I have seen the photos and the landowner contract or letter of authority, I will give you a suitable defence that you can use. What you have posted for your defence is not adequate.

Just to make sure you are aware of defence deadlines with a claim date of 16 September...

Deemed date of service (issue date + 5 calendar days) Monday 21 Sep 2026
Acknowledgment of Service deadline (14 days after service) 4pm Monday 05 Oct 2026
Defence deadline if no AoS (14 days after service) 4pm Monday 05 Oct 2026
Defence deadline if AoS filed (28 days after service) 4pm Monday 19 Oct 2026

So, for now, I would only submit the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) and tick that you will be defending the whole claim. The defence can be submitted later.

@therealrjp, thanks. As I said above, I don't want to give you a final defence until I have seen the evidence I asked for, particularly the signage, PPS's photographs and the landowner contract/authority.

However, having now seen the Particulars of Claim and your proposed defence, there are several points to clarify.

I would not base your defence primarily on the argument that the vehicle was stopped for less than two minutes and was therefore within a consideration period. That is certainly relevant, but there are stronger contractual and keeper-liability issues which also need to be pleaded.

Gladstones' Particulars of Claim specifically allege that:

"The signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract accepted by the act of parking".

That is important because they have expressly pleaded a contractual offer and acceptance by "parking". They will therefore have to prove that the signage actually made an offer capable of acceptance and that what occurred amounted to parking and acceptance of that offer.

From the evidence previously supplied at POPLA, the sign apparently states:

"No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time."

That is plainly relevant to whether there was actually any contractual offer to park. If the sign prohibits parking, waiting, loading and unloading altogether, there is a serious question as to what contractual permission PPS says it was offering the driver in exchange for £100. That is where the prohibitory-signage argument comes in.

The very short stop is also relevant, but I would not state that Jopson establishes that stopping and parking are always legally distinct actions. The judgment is more nuanced than that. It supports the proposition that merely stopping a vehicle does not necessarily amount to parking and that this is a question of fact and degree. Here, PPS's own photographs apparently show a stop lasting only around 90 seconds to two minutes, with the driver remaining in the vehicle. That evidence will be important.

The consideration-period argument should also be retained, particularly because PPS appear to have previously accepted in their own POPLA evidence that:

"it is reasonable to expect [a motorist] to stop in proximity to a sign for the purpose of reviewing the terms before deciding whether to remain parked."

They cannot easily reconcile that position with an allegation that the very act of stopping to consider the terms immediately constitutes acceptance and breach of those terms.

There is also an important point missing entirely from your proposed defence. The driver has not been identified. Gladstones have pleaded that you are liable "as driver and/or registered keeper". Those are two entirely different routes to liability. You should not admit to being the driver and there is no general legal presumption that the registered keeper was driving.

If PPS wants to pursue you as keeper instead, it must establish that it complied with all the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. We already challenged the NtK at POPLA under paragraph 9(2)(a), including its failure properly to specify the required "period of parking". That therefore also needs revisiting once I have the original NtK and evidence in front of me.

There is also the additional £70 "contractual costs" claimed on top of the £100 PCN. That should not simply be accepted because Gladstones have inserted it into the Particulars of Claim. They will need to establish the contractual and legal basis upon which that additional sum is actually recoverable.

As for the Particulars of Claim themselves, I don't think there is much mileage in trying to argue that they are so inadequately pleaded that this should become a major defence point. They are considerably more detailed than some of the usual Gladstones boilerplate PoCs. There are better substantive points to attack.

So, do not submit the defence you have drafted. You have plenty of time because, assuming you file the AoS as advised, your defence deadline is 4pm on 19 October.

For now, just get the AoS submitted and post the evidence I requested. Once I have seen the actual signage, photographs, NtK and supposed landowner authority, I can put together a properly pleaded defence based on what PPS can actually prove rather than us having to make assumptions about their evidence.
-----------------



I will submit the AoS later today to allow more time to form my defence.

I have also attached links to all documents and images that have been supplied to me by PPS.

• The original NtK front and back
  
• The landowner contract - pg1, pg2, pg3
  
• The images showing the on-site signage[/url] and the time-stamped photos my vehicle at the location (times included to save the hassle of looking at each) - [url=https://ibb.co/h0yKbcQ]11:32:36, 11:32:45, 11:32:49, 11:33:04, 11:33:13.
  

The landowner contract shows a start contract of 07/02/2024 and that it is valid for 12 months from this date. It mentions that the validity would automatically extend after this date until it is cancelled; should they be supplying an updated contract or is this sufficient?

You mention that the time-stamped images are not suitable for showing a duration of parking. It was the claim of the POPLA assessor that they sufficiently show a duration of parking and as a lay-person, this makes sense to me. Are you able to explain why this isn't the case?

[b789]

@therealrjp, thanks. There are already some useful points in what you have now provided.

First, the landowner contract does not simply expire after 12 months. Page 2 says that after the initial 12-month period it automatically extends for another 12 months and continues thereafter until terminated. So I would not argue that PPS needed a new contract merely because the PCN was issued after 7 February 2025.

However, there are potentially much more important problems with the authority they have produced. Page 1 expressly requires a site map to be attached "clearly defining boundaries", yet the pages you have supplied contain no map at all. Page 3 even repeats the requirement to include a map clearly defining the boundaries, but that section is completely blank. PPS therefore needs to prove that the precise location where your vehicle stopped actually falls within the land over which it was authorised to operate.

There is also no evidence in what they have supplied establishing what legal interest "TRADE SALES" has in the land. Their own contract anticipates that it may be signed by a landowner, leaseholder or appointed agent and specifically requires a leaseholder to provide evidence of its authority. Merely putting "TRADE SALES" in the customer box does not establish that it owns the land or had authority from the landowner to confer enforcement rights upon PPS. I would therefore retain the standing/authority point, although I would not presently allege that the contract had expired.

The photographs are more interesting. You said they demonstrate approximately two minutes of stopping, but the five photographs you have supplied are timestamped:

11:32:36 → 11:32:45 → 11:32:49 → 11:33:04 → 11:33:13.

That is a total evidenced interval of only 37 seconds.

More remarkably, the NtK says the vehicle "was parked" on 19 May 2025 at 11:34. None of the photographs you have supplied shows the vehicle at 11:34.

That brings me to your question about the "period of parking". There are actually two different evidential questions here which POPLA appears to have conflated.

Several timestamped photographs can obviously prove that a vehicle was stationary between the times at which those photographs were taken. I am not suggesting otherwise. Here they provide evidence that the vehicle was stationary over a period of at least 37 seconds.

However, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) imposes a separate statutory requirement upon the Notice to Keeper itself. It requires the notice to:

"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates".

That wording is important. The NtK does not specify "11:32:36–11:33:13", or any other period. It alleges simply that the vehicle "on 19th May 2025 at 11:34 was parked". That is a single point in time, not a period of parking. Schedule 4 also subsequently refers to the "single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)", reinforcing that Parliament deliberately required a period to be specified. 

POPLA's reasoning that several photographs carrying different timestamps somehow causes the NtK itself to specify a period is therefore questionable. The photographs may be evidence from which a duration can be inferred; that is not the same question as whether the statutory notice specifies the period of parking required by paragraph 9(2)(a).

There is another potentially very useful point arising from the 37 seconds. The PPSCoP states that the consideration period is fundamentally the period before the driver has accepted the terms, and specifically gives remaining stationary for more than five minutes as an example of evidence from which acceptance may be established. The PPSCoP is applicable to incidents occurring after 17 February 2025, so it applied on 19 May 2025.

Against that background, PPS's own evidence of only 37 seconds is going to require some explanation as to how and when they say the driver had read and accepted the contractual terms before supposedly breaching them.

There is also an apparent contradiction worth preserving. The contract describes the restriction as:

"Vehicles must not park within No parking areas (roads and footpaths)."

Yet PPS's signage apparently goes considerably further by prohibiting parking, waiting, loading and unloading. I want to see the actual close-up photograph of that sign before drawing conclusions from that discrepancy. The "on-site signage" link in your post currently just takes me to the ImgBB homepage rather than the photograph itself.

So please correct that signage link. Once I can see the actual sign clearly, I think we have enough to finalise the Defence.

One other thing: do not identify the driver in anything you post or send. That remains important because PPS is attempting to pursue you as "driver and/or registered keeper", and its ability to establish keeper liability under PoFA remains very much in issue.

[therealrjp]

@therealrjp, thanks. There are already some useful points in what you have now provided.

First, the landowner contract does not simply expire after 12 months. Page 2 says that after the initial 12-month period it automatically extends for another 12 months and continues thereafter until terminated. So I would not argue that PPS needed a new contract merely because the PCN was issued after 7 February 2025.

However, there are potentially much more important problems with the authority they have produced. Page 1 expressly requires a site map to be attached "clearly defining boundaries", yet the pages you have supplied contain no map at all. Page 3 even repeats the requirement to include a map clearly defining the boundaries, but that section is completely blank. PPS therefore needs to prove that the precise location where your vehicle stopped actually falls within the land over which it was authorised to operate.

There is also no evidence in what they have supplied establishing what legal interest "TRADE SALES" has in the land. Their own contract anticipates that it may be signed by a landowner, leaseholder or appointed agent and specifically requires a leaseholder to provide evidence of its authority. Merely putting "TRADE SALES" in the customer box does not establish that it owns the land or had authority from the landowner to confer enforcement rights upon PPS. I would therefore retain the standing/authority point, although I would not presently allege that the contract had expired.

The photographs are more interesting. You said they demonstrate approximately two minutes of stopping, but the five photographs you have supplied are timestamped:

11:32:36 → 11:32:45 → 11:32:49 → 11:33:04 → 11:33:13.

That is a total evidenced interval of only 37 seconds.

More remarkably, the NtK says the vehicle "was parked" on 19 May 2025 at 11:34. None of the photographs you have supplied shows the vehicle at 11:34.

That brings me to your question about the "period of parking". There are actually two different evidential questions here which POPLA appears to have conflated.

Several timestamped photographs can obviously prove that a vehicle was stationary between the times at which those photographs were taken. I am not suggesting otherwise. Here they provide evidence that the vehicle was stationary over a period of at least 37 seconds.

However, PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a) imposes a separate statutory requirement upon the Notice to Keeper itself. It requires the notice to:

"specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates".

That wording is important. The NtK does not specify "11:32:36–11:33:13", or any other period. It alleges simply that the vehicle "on 19th May 2025 at 11:34 was parked". That is a single point in time, not a period of parking. Schedule 4 also subsequently refers to the "single period of parking specified under sub-paragraph (2)(a)", reinforcing that Parliament deliberately required a period to be specified. 

POPLA's reasoning that several photographs carrying different timestamps somehow causes the NtK itself to specify a period is therefore questionable. The photographs may be evidence from which a duration can be inferred; that is not the same question as whether the statutory notice specifies the period of parking required by paragraph 9(2)(a).

There is another potentially very useful point arising from the 37 seconds. The PPSCoP states that the consideration period is fundamentally the period before the driver has accepted the terms, and specifically gives remaining stationary for more than five minutes as an example of evidence from which acceptance may be established. The PPSCoP is applicable to incidents occurring after 17 February 2025, so it applied on 19 May 2025.

Against that background, PPS's own evidence of only 37 seconds is going to require some explanation as to how and when they say the driver had read and accepted the contractual terms before supposedly breaching them.

There is also an apparent contradiction worth preserving. The contract describes the restriction as:

"Vehicles must not park within No parking areas (roads and footpaths)."

Yet PPS's signage apparently goes considerably further by prohibiting parking, waiting, loading and unloading. I want to see the actual close-up photograph of that sign before drawing conclusions from that discrepancy. The "on-site signage" link in your post currently just takes me to the ImgBB homepage rather than the photograph itself.

So please correct that signage link. Once I can see the actual sign clearly, I think we have enough to finalise the Defence.

One other thing: do not identify the driver in anything you post or send. That remains important because PPS is attempting to pursue you as "driver and/or registered keeper", and its ability to establish keeper liability under PoFA remains very much in issue.

I have updated the link to the on-site signage in my previous post, but here it is again for ease.

The images I have linked to were supplied to me in a word document (how professional). I have checked the document again to ensure I have not missed anything and confirm those 5 images showing my vehicle are the only evidence I have been given. You are correct that none show a time of 11:34.

I have not identified the driver and will continue to ensure this does not happen.

Also, thank you for your clarification on the timestamp question. It makes perfect sense now.

[b789]

@therealrjp, thanks. That photograph materially strengthens the signage/contract formation point, and it also clarifies the 11:34 timestamp.

The only photograph at 11:34:17 is a photograph of the sign, not the vehicle. The vehicle photographs run only from 11:32:36 to 11:33:13, so PPS's entire photographic evidence of the vehicle covers just 37 seconds. Yet the NtK alleges that the vehicle "at 11:34 was parked". There is no photograph showing the vehicle at 11:34.

The sign itself is particularly useful. It says:

"If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice"

but the relevant term then says:

"No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads at any time."

And, remarkably, at the bottom it says:

"DO NOT PARK HERE UNLESS YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS & CONDITIONS DISPLAYED"

That creates a rather awkward contractual proposition for PPS. Their Particulars of Claim expressly say that the signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract "accepted by the act of parking", while their own sign says both "No parking ... at any time" and "Do not park here unless you agree".

In other words, the very act which Gladstones plead constituted acceptance of the alleged contract is simultaneously the act expressly prohibited by the sign. That does not mean I am going to make the simplistic argument that prohibitory signage can never give rise to contractual liability. The point is much narrower: PPS must prove the contractual case that they have actually pleaded — precisely what was offered, what the consideration was, when and how the terms were communicated, and how this particular alleged offer was capable of acceptance "by the act of parking".

The photograph is also useful on the question of notice. This appears to be PPS's only evidential photograph of any contractual sign. It proves that this particular sign existed on a pole, but it does not establish where that pole was relative to the entrance or where the vehicle stopped, what signage was displayed at the entrance, whether the driver necessarily passed this particular sign before stopping, or whether the relatively small contractual wording was capable of being read from a moving vehicle before the alleged contract was supposedly accepted.

The 37-second period is also significant. PPS's photographs can certainly be evidence that the vehicle was stationary between the times shown; No one is suggesting otherwise. But that is a different question from whether the NtK complies with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the NtK itself to specify the "period of parking". This NtK specifies only the single time of 11:34, at which PPS has not even produced a photograph of the vehicle.

As for the landowner contract, I would not argue that it simply expired after 12 months because it contains an automatic continuation provision. There are, however, other issues with it which I will address in the Defence, including the absence from the evidence supplied of the site map which the contract itself expressly requires to define the boundaries, and the question of what authority "TRADE SALES" actually had over the relevant land.

There are therefore several useful defence points here. For now, just make sure the AoS is submitted as discussed, defending the whole claim, and do not identify the driver.

I will put together the Defence for you later today or tomorrow.

[therealrjp]

@therealrjp, thanks. That photograph materially strengthens the signage/contract formation point, and it also clarifies the 11:34 timestamp.

The only photograph at 11:34:17 is a photograph of the sign, not the vehicle. The vehicle photographs run only from 11:32:36 to 11:33:13, so PPS's entire photographic evidence of the vehicle covers just 37 seconds. Yet the NtK alleges that the vehicle "at 11:34 was parked". There is no photograph showing the vehicle at 11:34.

The sign itself is particularly useful. It says:

"If you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions stated below at any time you agree to pay a £100 Parking Charge Notice"

but the relevant term then says:

"No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads at any time."

And, remarkably, at the bottom it says:

"DO NOT PARK HERE UNLESS YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS & CONDITIONS DISPLAYED"

That creates a rather awkward contractual proposition for PPS. Their Particulars of Claim expressly say that the signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract "accepted by the act of parking", while their own sign says both "No parking ... at any time" and "Do not park here unless you agree".

In other words, the very act which Gladstones plead constituted acceptance of the alleged contract is simultaneously the act expressly prohibited by the sign. That does not mean I am going to make the simplistic argument that prohibitory signage can never give rise to contractual liability. The point is much narrower: PPS must prove the contractual case that they have actually pleaded — precisely what was offered, what the consideration was, when and how the terms were communicated, and how this particular alleged offer was capable of acceptance "by the act of parking".

The photograph is also useful on the question of notice. This appears to be PPS's only evidential photograph of any contractual sign. It proves that this particular sign existed on a pole, but it does not establish where that pole was relative to the entrance or where the vehicle stopped, what signage was displayed at the entrance, whether the driver necessarily passed this particular sign before stopping, or whether the relatively small contractual wording was capable of being read from a moving vehicle before the alleged contract was supposedly accepted.

The 37-second period is also significant. PPS's photographs can certainly be evidence that the vehicle was stationary between the times shown; No one is suggesting otherwise. But that is a different question from whether the NtK complies with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the NtK itself to specify the "period of parking". This NtK specifies only the single time of 11:34, at which PPS has not even produced a photograph of the vehicle.

As for the landowner contract, I would not argue that it simply expired after 12 months because it contains an automatic continuation provision. There are, however, other issues with it which I will address in the Defence, including the absence from the evidence supplied of the site map which the contract itself expressly requires to define the boundaries, and the question of what authority "TRADE SALES" actually had over the relevant land.

There are therefore several useful defence points here. For now, just make sure the AoS is submitted as discussed, defending the whole claim, and do not identify the driver.

I will put together the Defence for you later today or tomorrow.

Thank you for all of your effort so far, it is really appreciated.

I am submitting the AoS today and look forward to the Defence!

[b789]

@therealrjp, here is the defence you can copy and paste into the defence webform in MCOL. It has been checked that it will fit into the 122 line limit:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or at all. The Defendant was the registered keeper (RK) of the vehicle but does not admit to being the driver on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the identity of the driver and, insofar as liability is pursued against the Defendant as RK, strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) allege that the driver breached the terms by "PARKING IN NO PARKING AREA" and expressly plead that "The signage constituted an offer of a unilateral contract accepted by the act of parking". The Defendant denies that any contract was formed in the manner pleaded and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the offer, acceptance and consideration relied upon.

3. The Claimant's signage expressly states "No parking, waiting, loading or unloading on the roads and footpaths at any time", while also stating "DO NOT PARK HERE UNLESS YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS & CONDITIONS DISPLAYED". The signage therefore prohibits the very conduct which the Claimant now pleads constituted acceptance of its alleged contractual offer. The Claimant is put to strict proof of precisely what contractual offer was made, the consideration provided, when and how its terms were communicated, and how an express prohibition against parking at any time was capable of acceptance "by the act of parking".

4. Further and in the alternative, the Defendant denies that any contractual terms capable of giving rise to the charge were adequately communicated before the alleged acceptance. The Claimant has produced only one evidential photograph of a contractual sign. It does not establish the sign's position relative to the entrance or vehicle, what entrance signage existed, whether the driver passed that sign before stopping, or whether its terms were capable of being read from a moving vehicle before the alleged contract was formed.

5. The Claimant's photographs show the vehicle only from 11:32:36 to 11:33:13, a period of 37 seconds. The only later photograph, at 11:34:17, shows the Claimant's sign and not the vehicle. Yet the Notice to Keeper (NtK) alleges that the vehicle "at 11:34 was parked". The Defendant denies that the evidence establishes parking at the time alleged, or that being stationary for only 37 seconds establishes the pleaded act of parking.

6. The Defendant will rely upon Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, in which HHJ Harris QC recognised that merely stopping a vehicle does not necessarily constitute parking and that whether a vehicle is parked or merely stopped is a question of fact and degree. The extremely brief duration evidenced by the Claimant's photographs is therefore relevant to whether the pleaded act of "parking" occurred.

7. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice applicable on the material date requires an appropriate consideration period, including the time required to identify and read signs displaying the terms or consequences of parking where public parking is not invited, and to leave the controlled land if the driver decides not to accept those terms.

8. The Code provides that a consideration period may end earlier where there is evidence of acceptance, giving examples including parking and leaving the premises, paying a tariff, or remaining for more than five minutes. The Claimant's evidence establishes none of those examples and records the vehicle for only 37 seconds. The Defendant denies that the driver had a reasonable opportunity to discover, read and decide whether to accept the terms before the conduct said simultaneously to constitute acceptance and breach.

9. During the previous POPLA proceedings, the Claimant itself accepted that it "may not be safe or practical for a motorist to read the signage from the driving position of a moving vehicle" and that it was reasonable to stop near a sign "for the purpose of reviewing the terms before deciding whether to remain parked". The Claimant cannot reasonably rely upon stopping being necessary to consider its terms whilst also contending that stopping itself constituted immediate acceptance and breach.

10. Insofar as liability is pursued against the Defendant as RK, the Defendant denies compliance with PoFA. Paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to specify "the period of parking to which the notice relates". The NtK specifies no period, alleging only that the vehicle "at 11:34 was parked". A single point in time is not a period of parking. Moreover, the vehicle photographs end at 11:33:13 and do not evidence the vehicle at the time specified. Photographic timestamps do not relieve the Claimant of the statutory requirement for the NtK itself to specify the period of parking.

11. Absent compliance with every mandatory condition of Schedule 4 PoFA, liability cannot be transferred from an unidentified driver to the RK. The Defendant's status as RK does not establish that the Defendant was driving.

12. The Defendant denies liability for the additional £70 described in the PoC as "contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions". The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual term creating liability for that sum, its incorporation into any contract, the event triggering it, and its legal recoverability.

13. The Defendant disputes that the evidence establishes landowner authority. The agreement identifies the other contracting party merely as "TRADE SALES", without establishing its legal identity or interest in the land. The agreement expressly requires a site map "clearly defining boundaries", yet none was supplied. It also requires a leaseholder to provide evidence of its authority, of which none has been produced. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the contracting party had authority over the relevant land, that the location concerned fell within the agreement, and that the Claimant was authorised to contract with motorists, issue charges and litigate in its own name.

14. Accordingly, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has established the pleaded contract or act of parking, keeper liability, landowner authority, or entitlement to the principal or additional sums claimed.

Let me know when you have submitted the defence.

[therealrjp]

I've now submitted my defence. Am I right to think that it is likely they will discontinue?

Thank you, once again!