07-23-2026, 02:11 PM
@mouse, do not wait any longer for the court before preparing and serving your substantive witness statement. Gladstones have now disclosed the case they intend to rely upon, albeit six days after the court-ordered deadline of 17 July 2026. Their statement is dated 23 July 2026, so their assertion that it was filed “pursuant to the Notice of Allocation” is plainly misleading: it was not served in accordance with that order because it was late.
Their non-attendance notice under CPR 27.9 does not cure the default. It merely tells the court that they want the claim decided in their absence. You will still attend and can ask the judge to exclude their late statement and exhibits, or at least attach reduced weight to them and refuse any ambush caused by their non-compliance.
Their bundle has also created several useful admissions and further defects:
The next step is therefore to prepare your full witness statement and rebuttal immediately, addressing their bundle paragraph by paragraph where necessary. It should begin by recording that their evidence was served late, without permission or any application for relief from sanctions, and that you reserve the right to ask the trial judge to exclude it.
Also telephone or email the court once, referring to the claim number, to confirm that your earlier request concerning the witness-statement deadline has been placed before a judge. That is not “hounding” the court. It is sensible case management after the Claimant has now served a substantial 61-page bundle late.
I will draft a suitable WS and post it here later today.
Their non-attendance notice under CPR 27.9 does not cure the default. It merely tells the court that they want the claim decided in their absence. You will still attend and can ask the judge to exclude their late statement and exhibits, or at least attach reduced weight to them and refuse any ambush caused by their non-compliance.
Their bundle has also created several useful admissions and further defects:
- They expressly concede that PoFA keeper liability is unavailable for the July PCN.
- They still have no evidence identifying the driver and instead rely on speculative “inference”, agency and vicarious-liability arguments.
- Their witness wrongly states that the DVLA identified you as the registered keeper, despite this being a works vehicle whose keeper supplied your details.
- They admit the interest start date predates the due date of one PCN and call it a drafting error.
- They admit the original £95 figure comprised an £85 charge plus a separate £10 administrative fee, while still demanding another £70 per PCN.
- They still refuse to produce the landowner agreement, despite the court specifically requiring evidence of their authority. A claim that it is “confidential” is not compliance with a court direction.
- Their own signage photographs are dated 12 June 2024, but they produce no evidence of the temporary material-change notices required when the former free parking regime was replaced.
- Their explanation for ignoring your adjournment correspondence is contradicted by their own admission that they received three requests on 12, 15 and 22 June.
The next step is therefore to prepare your full witness statement and rebuttal immediately, addressing their bundle paragraph by paragraph where necessary. It should begin by recording that their evidence was served late, without permission or any application for relief from sanctions, and that you reserve the right to ask the trial judge to exclude it.
Also telephone or email the court once, referring to the claim number, to confirm that your earlier request concerning the witness-statement deadline has been placed before a judge. That is not “hounding” the court. It is sensible case management after the Claimant has now served a substantial 61-page bundle late.
I will draft a suitable WS and post it here later today.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
