DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 89513--------------------------------------------------
Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: Waqas
Date: September 11, 2025, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve received a County Court Claim from Euro Parking Services
Limited, issued via the Civil National Business Centre
(Northampton) on 15 August 2025. I have already complete AOS.
Claim details (from the form):
Claimant: Euro Parking Services Limited
Solicitors: Gladstones Solicitors Limited
Allegation: The driver of my vehicle allegedly breached parking
terms at Stack Shack on 23/07/2024, incurring a Parking Charge
Notice (PCN).
The claim is for:
£100 for the PCN
£60 contractual costs
£12.50 statutory interest (8% p.a.)
Plus court fee (£35) and legal representative’s costs (£50).
Total claimed: £257.50
Background:
I didn’t settle the PCN within 28 days.
Current issue:
I’m trying to post this on your site for feedback on my defence,
but I’m having trouble uploading the first page of my claim form
I would appreciate some guidance- Whether my defence (see below)
looks reasonable?
Thanks in advance for your help!
#Post#: 89515--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: Waqas
Date: September 11, 2025, 8:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My defence
1. The Particulars of Claim are defective. They fail to specify
the alleged contractual breach, omit the property’s address and
relevant parking times, and merely refer to “Stack Shack”. This
lack of clarity renders the claim embarrassing and non-compliant
with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16, which require a
statement of all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause
of action. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double
recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and
are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant.
The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking
charge (“PC”) maximum. Exaggerated and incoherent claims for
impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene.
Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if
details of the contract are provided, the Court is invited to
strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.
2. Separately from the defects in the Particulars of Claim,
the allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is
denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least,
interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings
lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material
documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The
Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of
unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant
has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to
admit that they were the registered keeper, so questions whether
the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.
3. In further support of the Defendant’s position that the
Particulars of Claim are defective, two recent persuasive appeal
judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44)
and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30)
would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule
16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th
August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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'. The same
is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court
should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to
CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held
that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply
with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans
held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon
which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.
3.1 In addition to the defective Particulars of Claim, there
was a procedural failure in service. The Defendant had moved
from their residence near Birmingham in late September 2024, yet
the Claimant served the notice to the former address (CPR
6.9(3)). The HM Courts and Tribunals notice, issued 15th August
2025, was only received via the previous landlord. This error
prejudices the Defendant and undermines the claim’s reliability.
4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached
but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and
valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer
Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on
Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer
notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also
s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the
Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear
(unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this
case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof
with contemporaneous photographs.
5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior
written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to
strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and
dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract,
updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the
landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).
6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a
strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for
loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any
relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated.
This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall
or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully
distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.
7. Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis
(an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and
generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii)
the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD
[2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and
stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse.
HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by
the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already
increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the
minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be
penal'.
8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by
operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government
recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to
bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called
‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July
2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than
... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be
indicative of these firms having too much control over the
market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.
9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable:
see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim
against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid
parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the
driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers,
not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related
charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even
in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA
and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.
#Post#: 89522--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 11, 2025, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Waqas link ---
>
> I’m having trouble uploading the first page of my claim form
>
--- End Quote ---
READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
#Post#: 89557--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: b789
Date: September 11, 2025, 3:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Trust me, what you have suggested as a defence is all correct
but is going to p!ss off the judge who has to read it,
especially the polemic on the upcoming Act. You do not want to
anger a judge who is looking for the easy life with your
defence.
Use the following for your defence, which has been drafted with
the assistance of a very long serving district judge family
member:
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and
that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a).
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
>
> (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
>
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts)
>
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to
adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), particularly where the
Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive
appellate cases:
>
> - Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ
Murch, ref: E7GM9W44
>
> - CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ
Evans, ref: K0DP5J30
>
> In both cases, the claim was struck out due to identical
failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
>
> 5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of
its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial
reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County
Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply
with CPR 16.4. In those cases, the court further observed that,
given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management
steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding
objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright
rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that
the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not 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; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 89871--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: Waqas
Date: September 14, 2025, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear b789 – Hero Member,
Thank you so much for your kind and thoughtful response — I
truly value the time and advice you’re sharing.
If I may ask, would it be considered appropriate to include a
suggested draft order when submitting my defence to the court?
And, if it’s not too much trouble, do you happen to know whether
anyone has successfully used a similar defence to have their
case struck out?
I’m very grateful for your help and guidance.
#Post#: 89881--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: b789
Date: September 14, 2025, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Short answer: yes, it’s appropriate to include the suggested
draft order within the defence on MCOL. It won’t be treated as
an application; it’s an invitation for the judge to act of their
own initiative. It does no harm and can help a judge who is
minded to strike out.
The PoC in any Gladstones issued claim never comply with CPR
16.4(1)(a) as they never include a concise statement of the
facts on which the claimant relies. Think of CPR 16.4(1)(a) as
the rule that says: if you sue someone, you must tell them, in
short but clear terms, exactly what facts you rely on. Not
conclusions, not labels, but the basic story: what contract,
what term, what was done wrong, where and when, and how the sum
is made up.
The PoC in a Gladstones issued claim don’t do that. Here’s why:
[indent]1. “Breach of parking terms” is just a conclusion. The
PoC don’t say what the driver supposedly did: failed to pay,
overstayed, left site, wrong bay, no permit, etc. Without the
alleged act, there are no material facts to answer.
2. Contract cases must set out the contract relied upon. PD 16
paras 7.3–7.5 require the claimant to attach or set out the
relevant terms if it’s written, or to state the terms if it’s
oral or by conduct. The PoC don’t identify any contractual term
or wording, so the defendant can’t see what term was allegedly
broken.
3. The PoC don’t state who is being sued and on what basis: the
driver, or the registered keeper under PoFA. If the keeper is
pursued, the claimant should plead that PoFA Schedule 4
conditions are met. As drafted, the defendant cannot tell which
case they have to meet.
4. Time and duration matter in parking claims. Saying only
“23/07/2024” isn’t enough. There’s no start time, end time, or
period of parking, so the defendant can’t check signage hours,
machine logs, receipts, grace/consideration periods, or whether
the vehicle was merely stopped briefly.
5. The place is vague. “Stack Shack” is a trading name, not a
precise location or car park area. Many sites have multiple
bays/zones with different signs. The PoC don’t say exactly where
on the land the alleged breach occurred or what sign applied
there.
6. The £60 “contractual costs” are just a label. The PoC don’t
plead any contractual term that entitles that add-on, nor facts
showing the defendant agreed to pay it. In contract, you must
point to the term that creates liability for the extra sum.
7. Interest is not properly particularised. PD 16 para 4.2 says
a claimant seeking s.69 interest should state the rate, the
start date, the period to which it applies, the daily rate, and
the amount claimed. The PoC give only a lump figure and 8% with
no period or daily rate.
8. Standing is not pleaded. Private parking firms need authority
from the landowner to contract and to sue. The PoC say nothing
about the claimant’s authority, which is part of the factual
basis of the claim.
9. The £50 “legal representative’s costs” are claimed but no
basis is pleaded. On the small claims track, recoverable costs
are tightly limited; if they say it’s part of the principal
debt, they must plead the contractual basis. If they say it’s
costs, they must accept the small-claims limits. As pled, it’s
opaque.[/indent]
Overall, the PoC read like “you broke some rule, pay £257.50”
without telling the defendant what rule, how it was broken, or
why the figures are due. CPR 16.4(1)(a) requires a concise
statement of the facts relied on. These particulars give
conclusions and totals, not facts, so the defendant cannot plead
a proper response. That is why they breach CPR 16.4(1)(a).
MCOL limits do not excuse inadequate Particulars
MCOL’s character limit is real, but the rules provide a simple
workaround. If the online box was too small, the claimant should
have selected “particulars to follow” and then served full
Particulars of Claim within 14 days of service of the claim form
(CPR 7.4(1)(b); PD 7C paras 5.2 and 6.1). That route exists so
claimants can comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16.
Full Particulars served separately should set out the contract
relied on and the exact term said to be broken, who is sued and
on what basis (driver or keeper under PoFA and how its
conditions are met), the where/when/how long of the alleged
parking event, and a clear breakdown of the sums claimed with
the contractual or statutory basis for any add-ons and for
interest (PD 16 paras 7.3–7.5; PD 16 para 4.2 on interest).
If MCOL still felt unsuitable, the claimant could have issued on
paper using form N1. Nothing in the rules forced them to rely on
an under-particularised MCOL narrative.
Prior letters, PCNs or emails are irrelevant to pleading
compliance. The Particulars must stand on their own and enable a
defendant, assumed to know nothing about the matter on receipt,
to understand the case and plead a defence. The court cannot
treat earlier correspondence as if it were part of the PoC.
In short, the claimant’s failure is one of choice, not
constraint. The rules gave straightforward options to plead
properly. MCOL is not an excuse.
#Post#: 89882--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: Waqas
Date: September 14, 2025, 8:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much — I truly appreciate your help and support.
I’ll keep you updated on how things progress.
I’m due to change my address and move house next month on
08/10/25. Could you kindly advise on the best way to inform both
the court and the claimant about my new address?
Many thanks again for your guidance!
#Post#: 89887--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: b789
Date: September 14, 2025, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Tell the court currently holding the file (CNBC/Money Claim
Online before transfer; your local hearing centre after
transfer).
Also Gladstones. Under CPR 6.7, once solicitors are instructed,
service is on them.
Send a short written “Notice of Change of Address for Service”
(you can use Form N434 or a simple letter with the same
information). The rules require parties to maintain an address
for service and to notify changes; a notice should be filed at
court and served on every other party.
Include:
[indent]• Claim number and parties
• Your full name
• Old address for service
• New address for service
• Effective date (e.g., “effective 8 October 2025”)
• Optional: “I also consent to service by email at: [email]”
(this helps you receive documents promptly; consent is needed
for valid email service).
File and send by email to the court (if that court accepts it)
or post; keep proof of posting.
As for the claimant, serve by post to their service address on
the claim (and email a courtesy copy). If you want email-only
service to count, ensure they have expressly agreed to accept
service by email.
Do it now, stating the effective date of 08/10/2025. If the case
later transfers to your local county court, re-send the same
notice to that court so their file is up to date.
Updating your details on the MCOL user profile is helpful for
contact, but the rules still require a filed and served notice
of the new address for service.
You can use this as a letter or complete Form N434
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Notice of Change of Address for Service
>
> Court: [CNBC/Hearing Centre]
> Claim no.: [XXXXXXX]
> Parties: [Claimant] v [Defendant]
>
> I, [full name], the Defendant, give notice under CPR Part 6
and PD 42 that my address for service has changed.
>
> Old address for service: [full old address]
> New address for service: [full new address]
> Effective date: 8 October 2025
>
> Please update the court record.
>
> I also consent to service by email at: [email address].
>
> Signed: [name]
>
> Dated: [date]
>
> Served on: the Claimant/Gladstones Solicitors at their address
for service.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 89964--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: Waqas
Date: September 15, 2025, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks again for your help. I will email and post the
documents to both.
Could you please let me know how I can confirm that the court
accepts email? I can only find this email address
(ccbc@justice.gov.uk), searching on the internet.
#Post#: 89998--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private parking fine (Gladstones)- HM Tribunals letter
DIR By: b789
Date: September 15, 2025, 7:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the email address you need to use:
caseprogression.cnbc[member=6517]justice[/member].gov.uk
Put the claim number in the email subject (e.g., “[Claim number]
– Defendant – Change of address”) and the first line of the
body.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page