Legal Manoeuvres and Monetary Impact: A Closer Look at Gladstone Solicitors' Involvement in Parking Enforcement Litigation, Totalling £2,190 in Costs
In the County Court at St Helens, Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd incurred total costs of £2190 due to Gladstone's particulars of claim.
This case is noteworthy as an initial application to strike out under CPR 3.4(2)(c) was made. However, during the application process, Gladstone Solicitors sought and obtained a default judgment, breaching CPR 12.3(3)(a)(i). An amended application to set aside under CPR 13.2 was subsequently made due to this default. Despite robust opposition from Gladstone, both applications were granted, with costs of £1440 awarded against Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd.
In essence, the Court ruled in favour of the Defendant represented by our solicitor’s partners, determining that Gladstone's particulars of claim were defective, and the conditions for obtaining a default judgment were not met, resulting in premature entry of judgment. However, the Court showed leniency towards the Claimant, ordering them to amend the particulars of claim. Although properly pleaded, the Claimant pursued the Defendant for exceeding the maximum parking time, despite the vehicle overstaying by only 18 minutes, with no indication on the signage that a grace period would not apply.
Despite advice to discontinue from the Claimant's representative, Gladstone persisted in pursuing the claim. Subsequently, a third application for summary judgment was made, asserting that the Claim had no real prospect of success and no compelling reason to proceed to a final hearing. In his submission, Mr. Jackson Yamba, acting as a solicitor agent referencing ParkingEye v Beavis, emphasised the necessity of fairness in parking enforcement, requiring full compliance with the IPC or BPA Code of Practice. Point 13 of the IPC Code of Practice specifies a grace period of 10 minutes at the end of the parking period, allowing the Defendant to stay an additional 10 minutes without a parking ticket.
Summary judgment was granted, with costs of £750 awarded against the Claimant. This case serves as a clear example of how some solicitors representing parking companies misuse the court system to pursue frivolous and vexatious claims