DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 36588--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: bz.08
Date: September 12, 2024, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Instead of giving us snippets of info, please show us all
correspondence you received from the court and Gladstones since
submitting your N180 DQ, suitably redacted. Reading back through
the thread, you used the long defence with the CEL v Chan
transcripts as the PoC completely failed to specify any cause of
action.
>
> When you submitted the defence, you never showed us what you
put in as your paragraph #4 in your defence. Also, in your para
#3 did you leave it as only the keeper or the driver and the
keeper?
>
> Edit: Never mind, I found it:
>
> [quote]3. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's
own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets
out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.
The PoC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach
allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it
is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper
anddriver of the vehicle.
>
> 4. I have no recollection of the reasons I would have been at
the location as this claim is the first communication I have
ever received on this matter.
--- End Quote ---
If you cannot recall the event, why on earth did you include
"and driver"?
Did you include the images of the CEL v Chan transcript in your
defence that you submitted?
What is the date of the hearing and by what date must all
parties submit their documents?
Please confirm that you selected the option 'NO' for a hearing
on the papers.
[/quote]
I guess it was not clear to me that you cannot include "and
driver". My intention was to say that I am the driver of the
car.. not that I was the driver on that day. But in hindsight,
yes I should have removed that part.
Yes I included the images of the transcript in my defence. The
date of the hearing is 15 November 2024 and the date by which
you have to deliver all the documents is 15 September 2024.
I can confirm that I selected "NO" for a hearing on the papers.
With regards to the correspondences, is it just the first page
of each letter? Asking because the Gladstones one is like 30+
pages (first 10 pages court related then evidence from their
side). I will upload once I understand what I should submit.
Thanks!
#Post#: 36599--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 12, 2024, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you try hosting the Gladstone's WS somewhere like DropBox.
If you don't yet have DropBox account, you can set one up for
free. When you host the pdf document of their WS, just make sure
you put it in the "Public" folder and that it is accessible.
However, go through it and pick out anything that you think is
not correct or is misleading.
You need to have your own WS submitted by that deadline and you
only have 3 days to go. You MUST get on with it and prepare it
NOW.
Your WS is your own version of events in your own voice. It is
written in the first person. Obviously, you have no idea about
the events or what term in what contract you breached. For
guidance on how to format your WS have a read of these
documents:
Section 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Practice Direction 32 = EVIDENCE
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part32/pd_part32
I will get back to you with some additional advice on what you
must put in your WS.
#Post#: 36623--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 12, 2024, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a suggested WS you could use as you were unable to
provide a proper defence and it requests that the claim is
struck out for breach of CPR 16.4:
--- Quote ---
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No.: xxxxxx[/right]
> [center]Between
>
> Full name of parking firm Ltd. (not the solicitor!)
> (Claimant)
>
> - and -
>
> Defendant’s name from N1 claim (can’t be changed to driver
now)


> (Defendant)
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> WITNESS STATEMENT[/center]
>
> 1. My name is [Your Full Name], and I reside at [Address]. I
am the Defendant in these proceedings and this Witness Statement
is made from my own knowledge and research, and I confirm that
the facts stated within it are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
>
> PRELIMINARY MATTER - The Claim should be struck out
>
> 2. I respectfully submit that before proceeding with the
hearing, the Court should consider a Preliminary Matter:
striking out the claim due to the Claimant's and/or their
solicitor’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which
requires a concise statement of the facts. It is embarrassing
that the Claimant’s solicitor, a firm widely recognised for its
bulk litigation process of issuing thousands of poorly pleaded
claims each month, has once again provided inadequate
Particulars of Claim (PoC). In this case, the PoC are so
deficient that I, as the Defendant, was expected to prepare a
defence without a proper understanding of the facts and
allegations against me.
>
> 3. Dismissing the claim is the correct course, with the
Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms like
the notorious Gladstones with their well-documented connections
to the IPC Trade Body) should know better than to make little or
no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing
to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, they
should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims
based in the following persuasive authorities:
>
> 4. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024
[K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at
Manchester County Court, held that
>
> [indent]"It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule
that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a
defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character
limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many
characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display
permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080
character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars
of Claim."[/indent]
>
> The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-01 CPMS v
Akande judgment)
>
> 5. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on
15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, held
that
>
> [indent]"the particulars of the claim as filed and served did
not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance
upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for
breach of contract".[/indent]
>
> The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-02 CEL v Chan
judgment)
>
> 6. There are many other examples of similarly poorly pleaded
claims that have been struck out, both at allocation stage and
at hearings. (See exhibit XX-03 Other CPR 16.4 judgments)
>
> The basis of the defence
>
> 7. These are the woefully inadequate PoC as provided to me by
the Claimant through their solicitor utilising MCOL:
>
> [indent]"THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION [ENTER
THE VEHICLE REG](THE 'VEHICLE') PARKED IN BREACH OF THE TERMS OF
PARKING STIPULATED ON THE SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT) AT NORTH HYDE
HOUSE HAYES, ON 19/04/2023, 18/04/2023, THUS INCURRING THE
PARKING CHARGES (THE 'PCN'S'). THE PCN'S WERE NOT PAID WITHIN 28
DAYS OF ISSUE. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN'S FROM THE
DEFENDANT AS THE DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE DEMANDS
BEING MADE, THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR OUTSTANDING
LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 PER PCN, £70.00 PER PCN
CONTRACTUAL COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY INTEREST OF £15.14 PURSUANT
TO S69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT 8.00% PER ANNUM,
CONTINUING AT £0.07 PER DAY."[/indent]
>
> 8. As evidenced, there is a lack of precise detail in the PoC
in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against me
such that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a). There is no precise or even concise factual
allegation made against me. There is no factual or legal basis
for the claim. It is not shown how the claim has been
calculated.
>
> 9. Should the court not agree that the claim should be struck
out, I respectfully request that the Claimant be ordered to
provide further particulars that, for the avoidance of doubt,
must:
>
> [indent](a) refer to and have attached to them (clearly marked
"A") a copy of the contract (or contracts) between the claimant
and defendant relied on.
>
> (b) set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is
(or are) relied on.
>
> (c) have attached to them a copy of each of the Parking Charge
Notices (PCNs) which forms the basis of this claim.
>
> (d) must state by what method each of the PCNs was first
brought to the attention of the defendant. For example,
attaching it to the defendant's vehicle or sending by post.
>
> (e) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out the
reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant
was in breach of contract.
>
> (f) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out (i)
the full postal address of where the breach took place and (ii)
the precise date and time of the alleged breach and (iii)
exactly how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was incurred.
>
> (g) state, in respect of each PCN sued on, whether the claim
is (or is not) brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012.
>
> (h) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, must state
whether the defendant is sued as the driver of the vehicle or
the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (i) not state that the defendant is sued in the alternative as
the driver of the vehicle or as the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (j) state what amount of the claim is the claim for
non-payment of the PCNs and what amount of the claim is not for
non-payment of the PCNs.
>
> (k) must explain the factual or legal (or both) basis of the
claim for any amount claimed which is not for non-payment of the
PCNs.
>
> (l) set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory
interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest
started running.[/indent]
>
> Should the Claimant fully comply with the order and the claim
is not struck out, I should be allowed to provide an amended
defence based on all the facts provided by the order.
>
> 10. I respectfully ask the Court to consider whether, had they
themselves received such inadequate PoC with no prior knowledge
of the underlying facts, they would have been able to prepare a
fair and comprehensive defence. As I stated in my defence, there
was nothing that I could defend against as I had no knowledge of
what terms I was alleged to have breached as I had not received
any prior correspondence on the matter.
>
> Conclusion
>
> 11. In light of the persuasive authorities and the Claimant's
failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), I respectfully submit
that the Court should strike out the claim in its entirety.
Should the Court not be minded to strike out the claim, I
request that the Claimant be ordered to provide fully compliant
Particulars of Claim, and I be permitted to file an amended
defence in response. I trust the Court will see that the
Claimant’s conduct and failure to provide adequate PoC has put
me, as the Defendant, at a significant disadvantage in preparing
my defence.
>
> Statement of truth
>
> I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are
true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be
brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
>
> Signed:
>
> Date:
>
--- End Quote ---
You include a separate page with a list of the exhibits, eg:
1. XX-01 Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024
[K0DP5J30]
2. XX-02 Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44]
3. XX-03 Other CPR 16.4 judgments
Here are the links to the exhibits you should use. Download them
and attach then as separate documents to your bundle:
CPMS v Akande
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=tyeuyjzj&dl=0
CEL v Chan
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&st=dsazx4f1&dl=0
Other Judgments
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y1pjpescb5ebmfge1z5zf/Judgments-2.pdf?rlkey=x084dxt68ix6uaa14i7sz5g9e&st=7j10sa5j&dl=0
Before you submit anything, please show us what you intend to
submit.
#Post#: 36694--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: bz.08
Date: September 12, 2024, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Can you try hosting the Gladstone's WS somewhere like DropBox.
If you don't yet have DropBox account, you can set one up for
free. When you host the pdf document of their WS, just make sure
you put it in the "Public" folder and that it is accessible.
However, go through it and pick out anything that you think is
not correct or is misleading.
>
> You need to have your own WS submitted by that deadline and
you only have 3 days to go. You MUST get on with it and prepare
it NOW.
>
> Your WS is your own version of events in your own voice. It is
written in the first person. Obviously, you have no idea about
the events or what term in what contract you breached. For
guidance on how to format your WS have a read of these
documents:
>
> Section 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Practice Direction 32 = EVIDENCE
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part32/pd_part32
>
> I will get back to you with some additional advice on what you
must put in your WS.
>
--- End Quote ---
Below is a folder with all 10 pages of the Gladstones letter
(excluding the photos and copies of the PCNs they allegedly sent
me):
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HlbSTh1DLTY94xhf2DN_0rD6x7AfHS-L?usp=sharing
Thanks for the info in your other post. I will review that now.
#Post#: 36716--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 13, 2024, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for showing us that cut and paste WS for the Claimant.
It is obvious that it is a template as they refer to the long
defence, which you didn't use.
I will provide some more detail to add to your WS before you
send it. You say the deadline for filing WS is 4pm on 15th
September, which is a bit unusual as that is a Sunday. Also, it
is unusual that the deadline for the fling is so far in advance
of the hearing date. Normally the deadline is 14 days before the
hearing. Can you please confirm those dates.
In the meantime I will put together a few extra paragraphs for
your WS before it is sent on Sunday afternoon.
#Post#: 36727--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 13, 2024, 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you post the copy of the landowner agreement they refer to
in their WS on page 3, paragraph 9 which they reference as
exhibit GS1?
We need to see the validity of it and how much has been
redacted. This is important.
#Post#: 36742--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 13, 2024, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Subject to seeing the "contract", here is the amended and
expanded WS which also rebuts the claimant's WS:
--- Quote ---
>
> [center]IN THE COUNTY COURT[/center]
> [right]Claim No.: xxxxxx[/right]
> [center]Between
>
> Hounslow Enforcement Limited
> (Claimant)
>
> - and -
>
> Defendant’s name from N1 claim
> (Defendant)
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> WITNESS STATEMENT[/center]
>
> 1. My name is [Your Full Name], and I reside at [Address]. I
am the Defendant in these proceedings and this Witness Statement
is made from my own knowledge and research, and I confirm that
the facts stated within it are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
>
> PRELIMINARY MATTER - The Claim should be struck out
>
> 2. I respectfully submit that before proceeding with the
hearing, the Court should consider a Preliminary Matter:
striking out the claim due to the Claimant's and/or their
solicitor’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which
requires a concise statement of the facts. It is embarrassing
that the Claimant’s solicitor, a firm widely recognised for its
bulk litigation process of issuing thousands of poorly pleaded
claims each month, has once again provided inadequate
Particulars of Claim (PoC). In this case, the PoC are so
deficient that I, as the Defendant, was expected to prepare a
defence without a proper understanding of the facts and
allegations against me.
>
> 3. Dismissing the claim is the correct course, with the
Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms like
the notorious Gladstones with their well-documented connections
to the IPC Trade Body) should know better than to make little or
no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing
to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, they
should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims
based in the following persuasive authorities:
>
> 4. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024
[K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at
Manchester County Court, held that
>
> [indent]"It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule
that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a
defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character
limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many
characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display
permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080
character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars
of Claim."[/indent]
>
> The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-01 CPMS v
Akande judgment)
>
> 5. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on
15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, held
that
>
> [indent]"the particulars of the claim as filed and served did
not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance
upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for
breach of contract".[/indent]
>
> The same is true in this case. (See exhibit XX-02 CEL v Chan
judgment)
>
> 6. There are many other examples of similarly poorly pleaded
claims that have been struck out, both at allocation stage and
at hearings. (See exhibit XX-03 Other CPR 16.4 judgments)
>
> The basis of the defence
>
> 7. These are the woefully inadequate PoC as provided to me by
the Claimant through their solicitor utilising MCOL:
>
> [indent]"THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE WITH REGISTRATION [ENTER
THE VEHICLE REG](THE 'VEHICLE') PARKED IN BREACH OF THE TERMS OF
PARKING STIPULATED ON THE SIGNAGE (THE 'CONTRACT) AT NORTH HYDE
HOUSE HAYES, ON 19/04/2023, 18/04/2023, THUS INCURRING THE
PARKING CHARGES (THE 'PCN'S'). THE PCN'S WERE NOT PAID WITHIN 28
DAYS OF ISSUE. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS THE UNPAID PCN'S FROM THE
DEFENDANT AS THE DRIVER/KEEPER OF THE VEHICLE. DESPITE DEMANDS
BEING MADE, THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO SETTLE THEIR OUTSTANDING
LIABILITY. THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £100 PER PCN, £70.00 PER PCN
CONTRACTUAL COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, TOGETHER WITH STATUTORY INTEREST OF £15.14 PURSUANT
TO S69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 AT 8.00% PER ANNUM,
CONTINUING AT £0.07 PER DAY."[/indent]
>
> 8. As evidenced, there is a lack of precise detail in the PoC
in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against me
such that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a). There is no precise or even concise factual
allegation made against me. There is no factual or legal basis
for the claim. It is not shown how the claim has been
calculated.
>
> 9. Should the court not agree that the claim should be struck
out, I respectfully request that the Claimant be ordered to
provide further particulars that, for the avoidance of doubt,
must:
>
> [indent](a) refer to and have attached to them (clearly marked
"A") a copy of the contract (or contracts) between the claimant
and defendant relied on.
>
> (b) set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is
(or are) relied on.
>
> (c) have attached to them a copy of each of the Parking Charge
Notices (PCNs) which forms the basis of this claim.
>
> (d) must state by what method each of the PCNs was first
brought to the attention of the defendant. For example,
attaching it to the defendant's vehicle or sending by post.
>
> (e) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out the
reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant
was in breach of contract.
>
> (f) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out (i)
the full postal address of where the breach took place and (ii)
the precise date and time of the alleged breach and (iii)
exactly how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was incurred.
>
> (g) state, in respect of each PCN sued on, whether the claim
is (or is not) brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012.
>
> (h) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, must state
whether the defendant is sued as the driver of the vehicle or
the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (i) not state that the defendant is sued in the alternative as
the driver of the vehicle or as the keeper of the vehicle.
>
> (j) state what amount of the claim is the claim for
non-payment of the PCNs and what amount of the claim is not for
non-payment of the PCNs.
>
> (k) must explain the factual or legal (or both) basis of the
claim for any amount claimed which is not for non-payment of the
PCNs.
>
> (l) set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory
interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest
started running.[/indent]
>
> Should the Claimant fully comply with the order and the claim
is not struck out, I should be allowed to provide an amended
defence based on all the facts provided by the order.
>
> Hearsay evidence
>
> 10. The Claimants 'witness' is a legal assistant employed by
the claimant’s solicitors and has no direct knowledge of the
actual events that form the basis of the claim. Any evidence
provided by this individual is second-hand, supposedly relying
entirely on information supplied by the claimant, and thus
cannot carry the same weight as testimony from someone who
witnessed or was directly involved in the incident.
>
> 11. The claimant's Witness Statement (WS) fails to comply with
CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, as it does not
clearly distinguish between what the witness knows firsthand and
what has been provided to them by others. It is evident that the
individual providing the statement, being a legal assistant with
no direct involvement in the events, relies on information
provided by their client and lacks personal knowledge of the
facts. As a result, this statement amounts to hearsay, which
weakens its credibility. Further, the claimant's witness has
failed to indicate the source of any information and belief, as
required under PD 32.18.2.
>
> 12. The paralegal 'witness' does not work for the Claimants
company and therefore has no role in the operations, policies,
or specific events regarding the parking charge or this case.
This distance from the Claimants company further undermines
their ability to give a credible account of the facts.
>
> 13. The claimant's WS is written in the third person, which is
inappropriate for a witness statement. A WS should represent the
personal account of the witness and should be written in the
first person, as per CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.1,
which requires a witness to state their evidence clearly, in
their own words.
>
> No Offer of Parking and No Contract Formed
>
> 14. In paragraph 11 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the
claimant lists the "terms and conditions" displayed at the site,
which are all prohibitory terms such as "No Stopping," "No
Waiting," and "No Pick Up/No Drop Off." I submit that these
prohibitions cannot possibly form a contractual offer because
they do not offer any service or benefit to the motorist but
rather prohibit actions altogether.
>
> 15. For a contract to exist, there must be an offer,
consideration, and acceptance. The claimant’s signs, by their
own wording, prohibit any action (such as stopping or waiting)
rather than offering parking or any other service. This means
there is no contractual offer made to motorists, as no positive
action is proposed in exchange for any consideration (payment).
>
> 16. In legal terms, a prohibitory notice merely tells the
motorist what they cannot do, and therefore, it does not give
rise to any enforceable agreement or parking contract. It is
impossible for a motorist to "accept" a contract that does not
exist, as they are not given the option to do anything other
than leave. If the terms are simply prohibitions, there can be
no offer capable of acceptance, and thus no contract has been
formed.
>
> 17. As there is no valid offer or contract, no liability can
arise from any alleged breach of such "terms and conditions" and
the Claimant’s parking charge is unenforceable on this basis.
>
> Unenforceable Additional Costs
>
> 18. In paragraph 13 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, it is
stated that the signage provides for a "Parking Charge in the
sum of £100, plus additional costs if the same remains unpaid."
However, I submit that these "additional costs" are not defined
anywhere in the signage or contract terms allegedly relied upon
by the claimant, rendering them vague and unenforceable under
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which requires that contract
terms be both fair and transparent.
>
> 19. In the Particulars of Claim, the claimant has added £70
per Parking Charge Notice (PCN), claiming this as "contractual
costs as per the contract terms and conditions." However, these
additional costs are not referred to or specified on the signage
at the site. The claimant cannot impose additional costs that
are not clearly stated in the contract (assuming a contract even
existed, which is disputed). This lack of transparency violates
Schedule 2, Paragraph 10 of the CRA, which prohibits unfair
terms 'that have the object or effect of irrevocably binding the
consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real
opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the
contract.'
>
> No Contract Formed Due to Prohibitory Signage
>
> 20. Additionally, as already argued, the prohibitory signage
at the site (e.g., "No Stopping," "No Waiting") cannot form the
basis of a contract. As there is no offer, no consideration, and
no acceptance of terms, no valid contract exists between the
claimant and the defendant. If no contract exists, the claimant
has no lawful basis to impose any parking charge, let alone any
additional costs. The purported £70 contractual costs are
therefore not only unjustified but also unenforceable.
>
> Penalty Charge, Not Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss
>
> 21. Furthermore, these additional costs appear to be arbitrary
and penal in nature. Under established contract law principles,
such as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], parking charges must
either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially
justified. In this case, the additional £70 is neither justified
nor explained. The claimant has provided no breakdown or
explanation of how this amount was calculated or why it is
appropriate. It can only be viewed as a punitive charge designed
to penalise the defendant, which is contrary to established
legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual
penalties.
>
> 22. The claimant’s demand for additional costs of £70 per PCN
is entirely baseless. It is not supported by any clear
contractual term, it violates the CRA's requirements for
fairness and transparency, and it constitutes an unlawful
penalty charge. The court should strike out this portion of the
claim as unenforceable.
>
> No Evidence of Service of PCNs, Reminder Notices or PAP
>
> 23. In paragraphs 20 and 23 of the claimant’s Witness
Statement, the claimant asserts that the details of the alleged
contraventions were sent to me as the registered keeper of the
vehicle, and that I failed to make any payment or response.
However, the claimant has provided no evidence that these
notices were actually sent or that they were properly served.
>
> 24. I submit that the burden of proof is on the claimant to
show that they not only prepared these notices but also sent
them in accordance with the relevant rules of service, as per
Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 6.26. Merely producing copies of the
notices does not prove they were properly delivered or received.
>
> 25. The claimant has not provided any evidence, such as proof
of postage or a certificate of service, to confirm that the
notices were actually posted. Simply producing copies of the
notices does not prove they were ever sent. Without evidence of
proper posting, the claimant cannot rely on CPR 6.26 to claim
that these notices were deemed served.
>
> 26. Furthermore, I had not received any correspondence
whatsoever from the claimant until the County Court claim form,
despite my address being unchanged for the last 10 years. I have
always received other PCNs and promptly dealt with them, which
demonstrates that there is no issue with my address being on
record with the DVLA.
>
> 27. The claimant’s assertion that, because the claim form was
received, the PCNs and reminders must also have been received is
speculative and not supported by any evidence. It is entirely
possible that these documents were not sent, were misaddressed,
or were otherwise not delivered. The claimant must provide proof
of proper service, such as proof of postage or delivery, for
these notices. Without this, their claim cannot stand as the
basic pre-requisites for holding the registered keeper liable
under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
have not been satisfied.
>
> 28. Additionally, the claimant seeks to recover legal fees and
other charges beyond the PCNs, yet there is no evidence that any
pre-action protocol (PAP), including a formal Letter of Claim,
was ever served. This lack of compliance with pre-action
procedures further undermines the claimant’s claim and the
additional costs they seek to recover.
>
> 29. I invite the court to strike out the claim on the basis
that the claimant has failed to prove proper service of the
PCNs, the reminders, and any pre-action correspondence. Simply
showing copies of these documents is not sufficient to meet the
burden of proof.
>
> Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to
Understand CPR and Legal Issues
>
> 30. In paragraph 23 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the
claimant’s legal representative — who, as already noted, has no
direct involvement in the events surrounding the alleged claim —
makes a wholly inappropriate and offensive assertion about my
ability to understand the complexities of the Civil Procedure
Rules (CPR). The witness claims, without any basis, that I have
relied on a "generic defence" found on the internet and implies
that I do not understand the references I have made to the law
and CPR requirements.
>
> 31. This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack.
The claimant's witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level
of education, professional background, or capacity to understand
legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly,
embarrassing that a firm of supposed legal professionals would
resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document.
>
> 32. As a litigant in person, I am not expected to have the
same legal expertise as the claimant’s solicitors. However, I
have every right to research legal matters and use any available
resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s
solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their
Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My defence is fully
supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless
of the method by which I prepared it.
>
> 33. Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about
my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable
behavior on the part of the claimant's solicitors. Such conduct
is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than
address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this
behavior violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount
to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which
requires the parties to act justly and fairly.
>
> 34. I respectfully request that the court take note of this
unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The
claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than
focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly
on their conduct and should be considered when determining
whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the
proceedings. Under CPR 44.3, the court has the discretion to
consider the unreasonable behavior of a party when making a
costs assessment. The claimant’s failure to adhere to the Civil
Procedure Rules and reliance on unwarranted personal attacks
amounts to unreasonable conduct and should be considered when
making any decision on costs.
>
> 35. In paragraph 25 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the
claimant asserts that I have been able to produce a "substantive
defence" and implies that I have not suffered any prejudice as a
result of the claimant's failure to provide detailed and
compliant Particulars of Claim (PoC). I respectfully submit that
this assertion is inaccurate and fails to appreciate the nature
of my defence.
>
> 36. My defence primarily relies on the fact that the
Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant were woefully
deficient and did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4,
as they failed to provide sufficient detail about the basis of
the claim. As a result, I was unable to understand the case
against me or adequately prepare a response to any specific
allegations.
>
> 37. The only substantive element of my defence, aside from
pointing out the deficiencies in the claimant's PoC and their
failure to comply with CPR 16.4, was to state:
>
> [indent]"I have no recollection of the reasons I would have
been at the location as this claim is the first communication I
have ever received on this matter."[/indent]
>
> 38. This is far from a detailed or "substantive" defence, and
it reflects my inability to provide a fuller response due to the
claimant's failure to communicate the alleged contravention to
me prior to initiating this claim. I have never received any
prior communication about this matter, either in the form of a
Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or reminder letters, as stated in my
defence. The claimant’s failure to serve any prior notice means
I could not reasonably provide a detailed account or explanation
of the circumstances of the alleged incident.
>
> 39. It is important to highlight that my defence is not
"substantive" in the sense that the claimant implies, but is
rather a reflection of the claimant's procedural failures and
their failure to provide me with any prior information about the
alleged breach. This has placed me at a significant
disadvantage, and the suggestion that I have not suffered any
prejudice as a result is clearly without merit.
>
> 40. The claimant cannot now seek to argue that their
inadequate PoC is excusable simply because I have pointed out
their legal and procedural failings. Their lack of compliance
with CPR 16.4 has severely hindered my ability to respond to
this claim in any meaningful way beyond disputing the receipt of
prior communication and highlighting their procedural errors.
>
> 41. I respectfully request that the court takes this into
account when considering the claimant's conduct and the impact
it has had on my ability to defend this claim.
>
> Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4
>
> 42. In paragraph 26 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the
claimant attempts to excuse their failure to fully comply with
CPR 16.4 by asserting that the information provided in their
Particulars of Claim (PoC) was sufficient to make me aware of
the nature of the claim. This is a feeble and unconvincing
attempt to justify their non-compliance, and I have already
provided evidence of recent persuasive cases where similar
failures led to claims being struck out.
>
> 43. As I have referenced earlier in this Witness Statement, in
CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that
vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential
details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s
PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking
crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged
contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting
evidence. In my case, the claimant's PoC contains similarly
vague and non-specific language, which prevented me from
understanding the basis of the claim and defending myself
appropriately.
>
> 44. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued
reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court
giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer
the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v
Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as
evidence.
>
> Conclusion: Claimant's Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof
>
> 45. The claimant, in their Witness Statement, has failed to
satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Despite
making various assertions about the alleged contraventions and
my supposed liability, the claimant has not provided adequate
evidence to support their claim. Specifically:
>
> [indent]Lack of Evidence of Service: The claimant has not
demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), reminder
notices, or any pre-action correspondence were properly served,
as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Simply producing copies of
these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or
delivery, and their failure to provide such proof severely
undermines their claim.
>
> Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4: As detailed earlier, the
claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are woefully deficient and
do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4. The PoC fails
to provide sufficient detail about the alleged contravention,
preventing me from fully understanding the case against me.
Recent persuasive cases, such as CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v
Chan [2023], demonstrate that such failures warrant the striking
out of the claim.
>
> Inadequate and Speculative Witness Testimony: The claimant’s
Witness Statement was provided by a legal assistant who has no
personal knowledge of the events surrounding the claim. Much of
the testimony provided is hearsay and fails to comply with CPR
Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, which requires the
witness to clearly indicate which statements are based on their
own knowledge and which are based on information provided by
others. This undermines the credibility of their
evidence.[/indent]
>
> 46. Despite these significant procedural and evidentiary
failings, the claimant has unreasonably asserted that my defence
is "without merit." I strongly reject this assertion. My defence
has highlighted the claimant's failures to provide sufficient
evidence and comply with legal procedures. Furthermore, as a
litigant in person, I have made every effort to research and
present a defence that addresses the key issues in this case,
despite the claimant’s refusal to provide me with clear and
adequate information from the outset.
>
> 47. The claimant has failed to meet the basic procedural
requirements outlined in the Civil Procedure Rules, including
CPR 16.4 for providing adequate particulars and CPR 6.26
regarding service of documents. Their continued reliance on
vague, hearsay-based arguments demonstrates a clear lack of
credibility and adherence to proper legal standards. In light of
these procedural deficiencies and the claimant’s unreasonable
conduct, I respectfully request that the court dismiss the claim
in its entirety and consider costs under CPR 44.3.
>
> 48. In the matter of costs, I ask:
>
> (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant
to CPR 27.14, and
>
> (b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant,
seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.
>
> 49. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from
this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of
Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is
liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance
(r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to
the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book
states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to
costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the
small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it
might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has
behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."
>
> Statement of truth
>
> I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are
true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be
brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false
statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without
an honest belief in its truth.
>
> Signed:
>
> Date:
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 36896--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: bz.08
Date: September 15, 2024, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Can you post the copy of the landowner agreement they refer to
in their WS on page 3, paragraph 9 which they reference as
exhibit GS1?
>
> We need to see the validity of it and how much has been
redacted. This is important.
>
--- End Quote ---
Apologies for the delay - my son was unwell over the last two
days and was occupied with that. I have uploaded exhibit GS1 to
the same Google Drive folder (see Whatsapp0, Whatsapp1 and
Whatsapp2). The only thing I have redacted is on the first page
(the two white boxes which identify their client and the exact
location their agreement covers). All the other redactions
(black boxes) are their own.
With regards to the deadline of delivering documents it is
actually 4pm on the 16th of September. The hearing itself is 13
November. I misrepresented them slightly because I've been told
not to post exact details as these legal firms often lurk such
forums and can identify exact cases (so apologies if that was
silly of me). Not sure why there is such a big gap between them.
Based on exhibit GS1, is there anything I should change to the
above template you posted? I am ready to fire it off today.
Thanks a lot!
#Post#: 36903--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 15, 2024, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please, instead of asking us to search through the thread for a
link to your Google drive folder that you provided to the
documents/evidence, just repost the link in your reply here.
That way, we do not have to go looking for the link again.
#Post#: 36905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received two PCNs from April 2023 with legal and court fees
on top but this is the first time I am hearing about thi
DIR By: b789
Date: September 15, 2024, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As you have redacted the name of the client, are you positive
that the client is the landowner or an agent of the landowner?
If they are an agent, such as a management company, there does
not appear to be any evidence in that contract that they have
any authority flowing from the landowner to operate.
Please confirm the name of the client or at least confirm
whether the client is the landowner or an agent of the
landowner.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page