Gladstones/Minster Baywatch Parking Charge going to court soon...

[newbie2121]

So received a NTK back in Sep 2022.

The NTK was sent 24 days after the fact, and was disputed straight away to Minster Baywatch, had no reply and then received a demand for payment, disputed again heard nothing back. Then got a letter from Gladstones with a letter before claim. Disputed with them and got a reply of no substantial weight, had a few back and fourths and it's now due to have a hearing later this month. Yet to file a witness statement but just want to clarify a few points.

If the NTK was not sent in 14 days (it was 24 days in total) and the NTK they have supplied as evidence clearly states that, is there anyway they can hold the keeper liable. Have disputed it many times and they just ignore the point regarding the NTK.

If the NTK doesn't fulfil the POFA regs (which they have stated they are using to enforce the charge), can they hold the keeper accountable? We disputed within 28 days too they just ignored it...



This is what they have filed in their witness statement so it seems they are trying to pin me as the driver...

"The Defendant’s position is that the Claimant has failed to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to pursue them as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant submits that the Defendant is being pursued as the driver of the vehicle. The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the Registered Keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption.
The Defendant alleged that they were not the driver when corresponding with my Firm prior to proceedings being issued, but failed to provide a name and serviceable address of the driver and evidence the same.

25. Despite having had ample opportunity to do so the Defendant has failed to identify the driver either adequately or at all. The Court is therefore invited to conclude it is more likely than not that the Registered Keeper (i.e. the Defendant) was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.

26. The Defendant alleges that the Claimant failed to respond to their appeal. The Claimant confirms that no correspondence was received from the Defendant prior to the matter being referred to my Firm.

27. By virtue of the Defendant failing to deal with certain points in the Defence, it is further submitted that;

5  The Defendant does not deny being the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle and has not sought to prove to the contrary that they were not the keeper of the vehicle at the date of the event;
 The Defendant does not deny the fact that the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms of parking at the site;
 The Defendant’s unwillingness to pay the outstanding sum has led to proceedings being issued and a final hearing being necessary.

28. It is submitted that the defence is entirely without merit.

29. It is therefore submitted to the Honourable Court that notwithstanding the defence that has been filed, the Claimant has satisfied the burden of proof in this case and is entitled to judgement."

To make it clear on multiple occasions I have stated I was not the driver and have evidence that I disputed the charge twice directly to Minster Baywatch before the solicitor made contact and have supplied that evidence in the bundle.

[des8]

If the NTK does not comply with PoFA2012 sch4 liability for a parking charge cannot be transferred from driver to keeper.

I am surprised Gladstones (or any other solicitor for that matter) try and use Elliott v Loake . It was a criminal case and the finding was supported by forensic evidence. It has no relevance in a civil trial
You might want to read this: https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/elliot-vs-loake/
Their para 25 is a complete nonsense. Why would the keeper identify the driver when he, the keeper, is aware that the claimant cannot proceed against an unidentified driver. One would not put friend in the way of the charge

[newbie2121]

Ok so now received a supplementary WS clarifying some points here goes, any advice on it please? Side note the ANPR picture is illegible and doesn't identify anything...

1. I am a Paralegal, in the employment of Gladstones Solicitors Limited, who act for the Claimant in this matter. I have conduct of this action, subject to the supervision of my principal. The matters to which I refer within this witness statement are within my own knowledge, or based on information provided to me by my client within the course of my instruction, save where expressly stated to the contrary. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on their behalf.
2. I make this witness statement in readiness for the hearing listed in order to the narrow the issues.

3. Within this statement, I make reference to various documents. These are now produced by me to the court as exhibits and are specifically referred to within the statement by reference to their exhibit numbers. These exhibits have been provided to me by the Claimant in support of their claim. Any reference to an exhibit number within this witness statement is a reference to the corresponding exhibit unless otherwise expressed to the contrary. Keeper/Driver

4. It appears to be the Defendant’s case that the Claimant cannot rely upon ‘keeper liability’ as a result of failure to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) specifically, service of the Notice.

5. Whilst a Notice to Keeper was issued to the Defendant, that Notice was issued pursuant to paragraph 22.8 of the BPA Code of Practice which permits Notices to be issued outside of the POFA legislation. Parking Operators are permitted to issue such Notices no later than 7 months after the original parking event. Exhibit reference GS7

6. Further to the above, the Claimant relies upon the case of Elliott v Loake 1983 whereupon the registered keeper is presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption, as referenced at Paragraph 24 of the aforementioned witness statement.

7. The Claimant submits that the contravention images taken at the time of the event, clearly show the vehicle to have been driven by a female with long medium to dark hair. It is therefore submitted that on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not that the Defendant was the driver at the material time. The Defendant is therefore required to prove she was not the driver by way of photographic ID, including but not limited to, her driving licence together with disclosure of the name and address of the alleged driver.

8. Additionally, it has subsequently transpired that a Facebook post has been submitted on behalf of the Defendant by her partner in which it is confirmed that the Defendant disputes the claim purely on “principal” rather than any specific facts or grounds. Principal is not a defence to the claim. Data Protection Breach

9. The Defendant has throughout the case, made various allegations of a data protection breach. This is a spurious argument at best and is in any event, denied.

10. In accordance with data protection and security the Claimant are approved to access the DVLA electronic link, the KADOE contract (Keeper of a vehicle at the date of an event) in order to obtain registered keeper details from the DVLA. In order to obtain access to the KADOE parking operators have to enter into a contract with the DVLA, the purpose of which is to set out the basis upon which the DVLA agrees to provide Data regarding the Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event to the Customer on request, via their electronic service.

11. The DVLA has the legal power, under regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, as amended, to: “make any particulars contained in the register available for use by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.”

12. The DVLA, providing they are satisfied that there are legitimate grounds for making the request will provide each requested item of Data to an accredited Parking Operator for the Reasonable Cause of enabling the Parking Operator to seek recovery of unpaid Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice, and using the procedure in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where the vehicle was parked on private land in England or Wales on a particular date. A Parking Operator will then use each item of the Data only for the Reasonable Cause for which it was provided, namely the recovery of an unpaid parking charge. It is the Claimant’s position that this is what has happened in this matter.

13. Once Data is received from the DVLA it is handled by the Claimant in accordance with its responsibilities as outlined in its agreement with the DVLA which mirror the responsibilities imposed under general law, in the Data Protection Legislation and its subordinate legislation made under it, together with any relevant guidance and/or codes of practice.

14. The Claimant becomes the Data Controller of each item of Data received from the DVLA and becomes responsible for complying with the principles of the DPA in relation to its further Processing of that Data. This is a responsibility that the Claimant takes very serious indeed. Any Data received from the DVLA is only shared with third parties who have a written contract/Data sharing agreement with the Claimant and then solely for the purposes of pursuing an unpaid parking charge. The Claimant has only shared the third parties data with a Debt Recovery Agency who then in turn shared the information with the Claimant’s Solicitors and not with any other third party.

15. The Claimant therefore processed the Defendant’s data in order to recover the unpaid parking charge and therefore, the processing of the data was necessary and was not unlawful or unfair and the Claimant had legitimate grounds for collecting and using that data

[des8]

Comments on :
Para 5 Yes the BPA code does mention issuing tickets to Keepers up to 7 months after the incident date, but that does not override statute law which states that if liability for the parking charge is to be transferred from the driver to the keeper the NTK MUST be delivered within 14 days of the incident

Para 6 This is a standard misreading of the Elliot v Noake case, but the judge could still be persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the Registered keeper was the driver. (just Google Elliot v Noake 1983 and lots of info pops up)
If you have some sort of evidence that others may drive your vehicle (eg named on your insurance) you need to produce it to sway the decision in your favour

That Facebook post is not helpful, and may prompt the judge to ask directly if you were the driver.
Of course you must answer truthfully, but if you cannot remember (eg because the day was unremarkable) you say you cannot recall.

I don't know what your defence was around data protection, but I doubt it has any mileage.

[newbie2121]

Facebook post was written by a third party, not on defendant behalf, and didn't say what they have claimed they have cherry picked two statements and altered the meaning to suit their case. Bordering on unreasonable behaviour IMO

[des8]

So you may have to counter that paragraph in court so have the full text available at the trial.

Good luck, and please le us know how it goes

[Tootsie52]

[QUOTE=des8;n1667321]Comments on :
Para 5 Yes the BPA code does mention issuing tickets to Keepers up to 7 months after the incident date, but that does not override statute law which states that if liability for the parking charge is to be transferred from the driver to the keeper the NTK MUST be delivered within 14 days of the incident

Para 6 This is a standard misreading of the Elliot v Noake case, but the judge could still be persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the Registered keeper was the driver. (just Google Elliot v Noake 1983 and lots of info pops up)
If you have some sort of evidence that others may drive your vehicle (eg named on your insurance) you need to produce it to sway the decision in your favour

That Facebook post is not helpful, and may prompt the judge to ask directly if you were the driver.
Of course you must answer truthfully, but if you cannot remember (eg because the day was unremarkable) you say you cannot recall.

I don't know what your defence was around data protection, but I doubt it has any mileage.



Hi, new here and this thread has struck a chord as I’m in a very similar situation whereby I also received a late NTK from MB.

In my case, I received the NTK 21 days after the alleged parking incident. The letter was date stamped by the sorting office 19 days after the incident. However, the letter from MB (which was the first correspondence as no ticket on windscreen) was dated 12 days after the alleged incident.

No admission of identity of the driver was ever made and part of defence was that MB had failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA by failing to give notice within 14 days of the alleged offence, as prescribed by section 9(4)(b) and 9(5) of the Act and failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act and that they could not therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to the Defendant as the keeper.

However, the response in pre-trial pack is that they have complied with PoFA as they sent it within the Act’s time frame and have essentially implied they are not responsible for the postal system’s failings.

I have looked at the relevant part of the act which does say;

“A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”

Therefore, the weight of their argument appears to be solely based on the date they put on the NTK.

Are you able to clarify as above entry says DELIVERED rather than SENT and it would be useful to know if there are previous cases that deal with a similar scenario?

I don’t for one minute believe the postal system took 7 days to stamp the letter and another 2 to deliver it but can’t see how I can prove that.


On a separate note, MB have also requested the trial hearing be held in their absence as they feel their bundle is sufficient to prove the case. Do I have any rights to request they attend? Such as right to face an accuser etc?




Any advice much appreciated!

[des8]

Tootsie52

Very briefly if you have the date stamped envelope and can link it to the NTK you can demonstrate that it could not have been delivered within 14 days.
If the claimant is not attending the trial, you should be celebrating as he will not be able to challenge your evidence, nor will he be able to clarify his own witness statement if you challenge parts of it.
Why would you want him in court?

Also if you wish to continue on here, could you please start your own thread as jumping on another's can cause confusion