pcm parking ticket but disabled

That's better - but VERY short and misses many issues. So, I do have suggested changes.

xxxxxxxx v Parking Control Management – Gladstones

Other way round it's them v you (no party is Gladstones). MUST have the claim number at the top and should read:

Parking Control Management v xxxxxxxx <<<(your name)



You were NOT in a hurry, you were sitting in the car, so none of this 'excuses' about being in a hurry/not seeing the signs as if it's your fault! Change the start as shown:



I am the Defendant and it is admitted that I was the driver of the vehicle on the day of this event. I deny any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the following basis:

1. Insufficient signs and lines, incapable of clearly restricting parking, or offering it. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

(i) It was dark [STRIKE]and I was in a hurry and didn't see the signs [/STRIKE] and no signage terms were visible, no contract communicated nor accepted. There was no consideration flowing between the parties, since PCM were offering nothing from terms on what is now believed to be a prohibitive sign, which I could not have seen and if there were any 'terms' these were not prominently drawn to my attention, in any way.

(ii) There was nothing to suggest that there were any parking restrictions. There were no entrance signs at all to show that drivers were entering an area of 'parking enforcement' or 'enforcement' or even 'private land'. This is not a car park but nor were there are restrictions displayed. The road was not marked with zig-zags or hatched lines, nor was it a 'no-stopping zone', nor was it visibly/prominently signed as a permit-holders or 'managed' site, as their Code of Practice requires.

(iii) This is a very poorly signed road, where I pulled over to pick up my young Granddaughter. I displayed my Blue Badge despite it merely being a brief stop to pick up a child, and I did not leave the vehicle at any point.

(iv) The minute or so taken to pick up a child, does not constitute a 'parking event'.

(v) Picking up a child on public highway is exempt activity, as is parking for Blue Badge holders, and there was nothing to tell me this was not a public road, or alternatively, that PCM were operating under different 'rules' than those in the Highway Code and/or the TMA 2004.

(vi) The Claimant did not comply with the Part B of the Code of Practice regarding grace periods, and is operating a predatory practice similar to the notorious operations PCM currently run in other locations, where a non-uniformed bystander with a camera runs out to snap pictures in seconds, before any driver can even read a sign.

(vii) I will also rely upon the case of Vehicle Services Ltd v Ibbotson (2012), in which it was held that the parking operative had every opportunity to tell the driver in person to move on, but failed to do so. A transcript will be appended as part of my evidence.



[STRIKE]2. I am registered disabled [/STRIKE]
There is no such thing as 'registered disabled' has not been since the 1960's.




5. (i) As it was dark I did not see whoever crept up behind the car and took some photos. [STRIKE]the parking attendant,[/STRIKE] These must have been taken in seconds, by an unidentified person, very likely a non-uniformed individual, typical of PCM's well-documented predatory modus operandi, as exposed in the national press and on BBC's Watchdog.

(ii) I was given no fair chance to read any terms at all, so the elements of a contract and agreement on any (unknown) charge are absent. Where terms on a parking sign are not seen/known, then there can be no contract. I rely upon the case of Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 APR 2000 (on Appeal), a case won by the consumer, where the Judges also found that clear entrance signs are expected.

(iii) Predatory practices and immediate ticketing before a driver can read any signs, is contrary to the International Parking Community's Code of Practice. The Supreme Court Judges in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that a CoP is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking. [STRIKE]person who surely could have asked me to move along. Why take photo from behind unless it was to be sneaky[/STRIKE]


Don't ask questions. So not this:

6. Why is a parking company taking me to court when it is not their land?

You should also add something like this, near the end as more numbered points:


6. (i) No contract was formed, no parking event occurred and the facts of this case can be fully distinguished from Beavis. There was no meeting of minds, no contract accepted by performance and no agreement to pay any parking charge, because there was no parking event.

(ii) Parking was defined by His Honour Charles Harris QC at Oxford County Court in June 2016 (on Appeal) in Jopson -v- Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E. This Senior Circuit Judge spent some time over the definition of parking, finding against the original County Court decision. The Judge held that stopping temporarily or for any minor reason to deliver, load/unload or pick up a passenger, for mere minutes, is not parking.

(iii) No parking contract can apply to such a situation and without contractual agreement, so no parking charge is recoverable.

(iv) Absent any contractual offer capable of being accepted, the only possible Cause of Action would be a tort of trespass to land. However, such an action could only be brought by the landowner, or a party with a proprietary or beneficial interest in the land, which this Claimant does not possess. In any event, trespass is not pleaded by this Claimant and they will be aware from the Supreme Court decision in Beavis, that it was held:

''97. As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass. This is because it lost nothing by the unauthorised use resulting from Mr Beavis overstaying.''

''By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract.'' [...] ''But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupational value of the parking space.’’

(v) Claimants from the ex-clamping industry (and I have discovered that PCM were notorious clampers for many years, swooping to clamp cars within seconds to demand money with menaces, the only difference now being that their weapon of choice is now a camera) typically try to rely upon the Beavis case as a binding precedent on the lower court, wrongly misleading consumers that it has universal application in all parking charge cases. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same.

(vi) In Beavis, the time in the car park exceeded the free hours allowed and it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract were known and had been breached, whereas it is my position that no such breach occurred and no parking terms were known nor accepted. By contrast, this Claimant offered no licence to park if ‘unauthorised’.



7. No contract.

I am having to second-guess the issues, given the lack of visible signs/lines and the want of a cause of action in the sparse Particulars, but a purported ''licence'' to stop without a permit, in exchange for payment of a three-figure inflated ‘charge' cannot be offered when that same conduct is, on the other hand, intended to be expressly prohibited. This is a nonsense, at best ambiguous and a contradiction, rendering it impossible to be considered a 'contract'.



8. Unsupported added costs.

It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.



9. No standing

It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered, therefore any alleged 'unauthorised' parking can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.



10. Sparse Particulars - no Cause of Action - and failure to comply with pre-Court Protocol

(i) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified well over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, harassing and wholly unfair on unrepresented consumers. Using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection, especially against disabled drivers for stopping on a poorly-signed road, is not something the courts should be seen to support.

(ii) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

(iii) The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.

(iv) It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

(v) The defendant therefore asks that the court orders the case to be struck out for want of a detailed course of action and/or for the claim as having no prospect of success. This case falls comfortably within the category of those in which the court may exercise its powers under R27.14(2)(g) and/or para 16 of the Practice Direction and I intend to seek my full wasted costs in this matter.

I believe the facts contained in this defence are true.


signature and date

Redx, this one is a defence! NOT POPLA.

I have edited with wrong stuff taken off and points 3 and 4 put in without repeating what is in a future paragraph and changed the heading numbers as there is now one less. Obviously it now has my sensitive information on but can edit again to put on drop box if you require me to. I imagine this will not fit onto the website page MCOL so am I correct in thinking i should send by registered post? Also please advise on what I have asked in earlier message.

There is not such thing as 'registered post', not for decades.

Email it as an attached PDF document, to the CCBC, like others here do. Keep proof of emailing.

You can easily Google the email or find it in threads here.