Gladstones Claim Form

[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?