09-28-2026, 11:46 AM
@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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
