PCM (UK) PCN at my residence. Two letters received, both after appeal time expired.

Gr1pr

No , not normal,  you should have received a court order,  which gives you the hearing date,  the deadline that the claimant must pay the court hearing fee , plus the deadline that both parties must provide and submit WS + Exhibits to each other and to the court 

I suggest that you carefully study the court order again,  seeing as you are aware of the hearing date, it should tell you the deadlines 

GrinFandango

I am only aware of the hearing date as the Witness Statement from Gladstones mentions it. I haven’t received a letter. 

Gr1pr

You better contact the court urgently and get a copy of the court order they sent to you emailed over,  today

GrinFandango

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

Claim No.: 
Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v _________

---

1. I am ----------. I am the Defendant in this matter and make this witness statement in support of my defence. The contents are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and based upon my direct experience.

2. I refer to and rely on my filed Defence dated 20 May 2024, and I will expand upon relevant points herein to assist the Court.

---

Facts and Sequence of Events

3. The Claimant alleges a parking contract was formed at --------House, the residential building in which I and my family reside. My vehicle is registered to this address, confirming my status as a resident.

4. My wife and I moved into an unfurnished apartment in October 2022. I was advised by the landlord and building managers () that temporary parking permits were obtainable by calling PCM (UK) Ltd, the Claimant. Despite repeated efforts, including my pregnant wife spending over 90 minutes on hold per call (only for the line to drop), we were unable to obtain any form of temporary parking approval. Our complaints were raised with the management company (Exhibit 1).

5. During the December 2022 to New Year 2023 period, I was gradually furnishing and decorating the flat. This involved the delivery of heavy items, some of which I personally unloaded and carried up to the 13th floor. Owing to the absence of any clearly marked bays or signage for temporary parking or loading, I briefly parked in unmarked areas near the entrance. Despite this, I was issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on each occasion for “parking outside a marked bay”.

6. On one occasion, the PCM contractor glued an empty PCN envelope directly to the centre of my windscreen, impairing visibility and requiring chemical removal. The glue caused lasting damage to the windscreen in the driver’s direct line of sight (Exhibit 2) which led to sale of my vehicle at 20% less than market value as windscreen replacement costs were unaffordable (Exhibit 3).

7. I personally witnessed issues with PCM conduct when residents used to complain about multiple PCNs issued to virtually all cars on-site – including those with valid permits – in what residents described as "super PCN days." I approached a PCM warden on-site to better understand the predatory behaviour and I was informed of how Parking Control Management (UK) operate a payment-per-successful-PCN policy and no minimum wage. He clarified he only made a living if a driver/registered keeper paid the ticket.

8. In summer 2023, I was informed by building management that due to widespread resident complaints, PCM’s contract had been terminated. The replacement company was explicitly warned against emulating PCM’s predatory practices. I make note of the “Authority to Operate” attached by PCM in the witness statement. I put PCM on strict proof to provide details of revoked authority to operate including reason, as I can testify the current operators are National Parking Management (NPC), not PCM. (Exhibit 4)

---

Exaggerated Claim

9. The Claimant’s claim is inflated. The ‘core debt’ from a parking charge cannot exceed £100, and this figure is already generous. The Claimant has added a further £70 per PCN as supposed ‘debt recovery’ costs. I say this is wholly unjustified.

10. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published a statutory Code of Practice in February 2022. Its Ministerial Foreword is clear:

“Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.”

11. The Government's July 2023 Draft Impact Assessment (DLUHC) states that the actual cost of debt recovery per case is just £8.42 – not £70. Therefore, this case exemplifies exaggerated costs and "double recovery." These fees fund bulk litigation without genuine merit or fact-checking, as the Claimant’s vague and generic Particulars of Claim demonstrate.

---

Consumer Rights Act 2015 Breaches

12. The signage at the site is small, unclear, and unlit. There was no fair opportunity to read, consider, or accept the terms before PCNs were issued. Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) requires terms and notices to be fair, prominent, and transparent. The Claimant fails this test.

13. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ruled that penalty clauses must be justified by a legitimate interest that extends beyond mere deterrence. The court found this to be the case in a city centre retail park with clear yellow and black signs and commercial justification. That is entirely unlike this case.

14. The signs at -------- were not in prominent positions, not lit in low-light conditions, and no marked bays or terms relating to temporary/unloading parking were visible.

---

Standing and Keeper Liability

15. The Claimant has not proven it has authority from the landowner to enter into contracts or bring legal proceedings. As per the DVLA KADOE contract rules, they must prove this. Furthermore, if the Claimant is relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) for keeper liability, they must prove full compliance, which they have failed to do.

---

Predatory Conduct

16. The repeated PCNs issued during short loading/unloading in a residential setting, during move-in and furnishing activities, were not only disproportionate but unreasonable. This was not a public car park; it was my home.

17. Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E confirms that unloading is not “parking” and that residential rights are relevant. In that case, the judge recognised the difference between transient acts and long-term parking. The facts of my case are similar and Jopson should apply.

---

Conclusion

18. The Claimant's conduct is consistent with widespread consumer harm identified by the Government. Their added costs are not genuine losses but part of a profit-seeking litigation model targeting residents.

19. I respectfully ask the Court to:

·       Strike out or dismiss the claim due to lack of merit, poor particulars, and abuse of process;

·       Refuse to award the falsely added £70 ‘debt fee’;

·       Consider a finding of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and award appropriate costs;

·       If the Claimant discontinues late, apply CPR 38.6 and CPR 46.5 to award costs accordingly.

---

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: ____________________________
Name: 

Dated: [Insert date here]

---

 

Coupon-mad

Good!

I think you need 4 more exhibits, all of which could be electronic links to keep your WS bundle under the 50 pages most courts allow:

- your tenancy agreement (full)

- Chan

- Akande

- Jopson v Homeguard

GrinFandango

Thanks, 

I want to add a personal impact statement in the conclusion (hours spent researching, behaviour of TRACE Debt Recovery acting on behalf of PCM), how I should be focusing on and getting my research out but here I am dealing with Gladstones, and the sort. 

I am not keen to address the snide remarks about using a “publicly available template” and how I don’t understand legal terminology but I do wish to declare what my profession is and the impact its had on public good, that I have been kept away responding to idiots when I could be saving lives.

Would you recommend I do so?

Coupon-mad

Yep. If you have a profession that is respected, why not?

But I'd actually put that briefly in a couple of sentences not in your WS but on a completely separate sheet headed up:

DEFENDANT'S COSTS ASSESSMENT

Makes sense to then attach to that, proof of your daily rate of pay and ask for all costs at your rate of pay due to the C's 'wholly unreasonable conduct' summarised above.

Here's the high bar you must reach for (it isn't easy and you may not convince your judge but if you don't ask, you don't get):

https://www.lpc-law.co.uk/news/the-rule-on-unreasonable-behaviour-in-small-claims-reasonably-obvious/

Refer to Dammerman. Read up!

GrinFandango

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

Claim No.: L7GF
Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v 

---

1.     I am - I am the Defendant in this matter and make this witness statement in support of my defence. The contents are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and based upon my direct experience.

2.     I refer to and rely on my filed Defence dated 20 May 2024, Claimant’s Witness Statement dated 24 June 2025 and I will expand upon relevant points herein to assist the Court.

3.    

---

Facts and Sequence of Events

4.     The Claimant alleges a parking contract was formed at  House, the residential building in which I and my family reside. My vehicle was registered to this address, and all correspondence was received at my  House residence, confirming my status as a resident. I also attach a copy of my tenancy agreement (Exhibit – Tenancy agreement, Car historic V5C)

5.     My wife and I moved into an unfurnished apartment in October 2022. I was advised by the landlord and building managers (name property managers) that the process to obtaining temporary parking permits and loading/unloading authorisation was by calling PCM (UK) Ltd, the Claimant. Despite repeated efforts, including my pregnant wife spending over 90 minutes on hold per call (only for the line to drop), PCM (UK) Ltd. permit systems were inaccessible and we were unable to obtain any form of temporary parking approval. 

6.     I reject the Claimant’s Witness Statement claims that due appeal process was not utilised. Our complaints regarding system inaccessibility were raised with PCM (UK) Ltd. (Exhibit – Emails to PCM and Rejection of Appeal) and the management company (Exhibit – Email to management about no access to their lines).

7.     During the December 2022 to New Year 2023 period, I was gradually furnishing and decorating the flat. This involved the delivery of heavy items, some of which I personally unloaded and carried up to the 13th floor. Owing to the absence of any clearly marked bays or signage for loading/unloading, I parked the vehicle in an unmarked areas near the entrance which, due to its location and appearance, seemed intentionally unmarked for such activity. I always left a note in my vehicle stating “Moving House” to communicate reason for parking to PCM (UK) Ltd. wardens as we were unable to access the permits helpline. 

8.     I was issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) each time, including consecutive days during this period for “parking outside the confines of a marked bay”.    

9.  I can testify Parking Control Management (UK) have been unresponsive to appeals and involved in repeat PCNs beyond the scope of this case related to similar home related loading/unloading activity, until their “authority to operate” was prematurely terminated by property managers at House site.

10.  I personally witnessed issues with PCM conduct when residents used to complain about multiple PCNs issued to virtually all cars on-site – including those with valid permits – in what residents described as "super PCN days." I approached a PCM warden on-site to better understand the predatory behaviour and I was informed of how Parking Control Management (UK) operate a payment-per-successful-PCN policy and no minimum wage. He clarified he only made a living if a driver/registered keeper paid the ticket. I put Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. to strict proof on the absence of such predatory employment practices. 

11. On one occasion of loading/unloading, a PCN was issued which has since been revoked by PCM (UK) Ltd. I bring this PCN to the court’s attention to demonstrate the pattern of unreasonable conduct. PCM (UK) Ltd glued three PCN envelopes directly to the centre of my vehicle's windscreen, impairing visibility and requiring chemical removal. Not only was it unsafe to drive the car immediately after loading, the glue caused lasting damage to the windscreen in the driver’s direct line of sight (Exhibit 2- An) which led to sale of my vehicle at around 20% less as similarly priced vehicles on the market value (£2,000 instead of £2,500 due to windscreen defect) as windscreen replacement costs were unaffordable (Exhibit 3 - Official PCN date and photos. Car sale receipt close to the date of PCN).

12.  I was informed by building management that due to widespread resident complaints, PCM’s contract had been terminated. The replacement company was explicitly warned against emulating PCM’s predatory practices (Exhibit – Email Property manager)

---

Exaggerated Claim

13.  The Claimant’s claim is inflated. The ‘core debt’ from a parking charge cannot exceed £100, and this figure is already generous. The Claimant has added a further £70 per PCN as supposed ‘debt recovery’ costs. I say this is wholly unjustified.

14.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published a statutory Code of Practice in February 2022. Its Ministerial Foreword is clear:

15.  “Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.”

16.  The Government's July 2023 Draft Impact Assessment (DLUHC) states that the actual cost of debt recovery per case is just £8.42 – not £70. Therefore, this case exemplifies exaggerated costs and "double recovery." These fees fund bulk litigation without genuine merit or fact-checking, as the Claimant’s vague and generic Particulars of Claim demonstrate.

---

Consumer Rights Act 2015 Breaches

17.  The signage at the site is small, unclear, and unlit and provisions for resident loading/unloading were absent. There was no fair opportunity to read, consider, or accept the terms before PCNs were issued. Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) requires terms and notices to be fair, prominent, and transparent. The Claimant fails this test.

18.  The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ruled that penalty clauses must be justified by a legitimate interest that extends beyond mere deterrence. The court found this to be the case in a city centre retail park with clear yellow and black signs and commercial justification. That is entirely unlike this case.

19.  The signs at - House were not in prominent positions, not lit in low-light conditions, and no marked bays or terms relating to temporary/unloading parking were visible.

---

Standing and Keeper Liability

20.  The Claimant has not proven it has authority from the landowner to enter into contracts or bring legal proceedings. Although the witness statement presents an “Authority to Operate” document dated 03.09.20, the claimant has provided no evidence to assert the end date for said provision.

21.  The defence statement submitted by the defendant clearly outlines a professional dispute between "property management' and PCM (UK) Ltd. which resulted in early termination of contract. The respondent is personally aware, following conversations with residents and management, that residents' complaints formed basis of said dispute. 

22.  It is to be noted as a matter-of-fact National Parking Control (UK) Ltd. are in possession of current “authority to operate” contract in lieu of markings at the same site in - House which may be compared to exhibits produced by PCM (UK) Ltd. (Exhibit – NPC markings at same site), a detail omitted by the claimant.

23.  As per the DVLA KADOE contract rules, they must prove this. Furthermore, if the Claimant is relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) for keeper liability, they must prove full compliance, which they have failed to do.

---

Predatory Conduct

24.  The repeated PCNs issued during short loading/unloading in a residential setting, during move-in and furnishing activities, were not only disproportionate but unreasonable. This was not a public car park; it was my home.

25.  Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E confirms that unloading is not “parking” and that residential rights are relevant. In that case, the judge recognised the difference between transient acts and long-term parking. The facts of my case are similar and Jopson should apply.

26.  I refer to Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 in consideration of the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour. 

27.  PCM (UK) Ltd. is aware their “authority to operate” had been revoked by ‘property management’ due to unreasonable conduct, yet they consider it appropriate to litigate defendants on alleged outstanding debts arising from historic PCNs. (Email - To PCM challenging their authority to operate)

28.  PCM (UK) Ltd. has also demonstrated deliberate omission of details related to end-of-contract at the - House site including circumstances pertaining to their wholly unreasonable conduct. I put PCM (UK) Ltd. to strict proof to declare the internal correspondence which outlines the events leading to reporting of resident and management complaints which directly or indirectly let to abrupt termination of contract at Regency Heights site, which includes -- House. I provide direct evidence available to me (Exhibit – Email Property manager)

29.  I provide further evidence of the negligent and predatory behaviour we were subjected to by PCM (UK) Ltd. by sharing images of PCN PC2820xxx. Demonstrated in the images attached from PCM (UK) Ltd Subject Access Request materials, it is clear two PCNs and one empty PCN envelope were affixed in the drivers view and photographed from multiple angles to proudly demonstrate their negligent actions (Exhibit – PCN PC2820xxx). My email correspondence is also attached (Exhibit – my email response to PCN)

30.  PCM (UK) Ltd and those acting on behalf of the claimant, including but not limited to TRACE Debt Recovery UK (Ltd), made every effort to intimidate and cajole the respondent into submission, demonstrating intimidation tactics causing unnecessary distress, mental anguish and sense of insecurity in my own home. (Exhibit – A TRACE letters)

 

---

Conclusion

31.  The Claimant's conduct is consistent with widespread consumer harm identified by the Government. Their added costs are not genuine losses but part of a profit-seeking litigation model targeting residents.

32.  I respectfully ask the Court to:

33.  Strike out or dismiss the claim due to lack of merit, poor particulars, and abuse of process;

34.  Refuse to award the falsely added £70 ‘debt fee’;

35.  Consider a finding of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(f) and CPR 27.14(2)(g) and award appropriate costs;

36.  If the Claimant discontinues late, apply CPR 38.6 and CPR 46.5 to award costs accordingly.

---

Statement of Truth

37.  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: ____________________________
Name: 
Dated: [Insert date here]

---

 

DEFENDENTS COSTS ASSESSMENT 

39.  I am (of a respected profession).  The time, effort and stress caused by the claimant’s and their representatives’ collective actions have led to loss of numerous hours of work. 

40.  As I am not legally trained, I had to spend weeks researching legal precedents and seeking advice to construct the defence and witness statement, time I had already committed but consequently withdrew from research, supporting (public in a respected profession) and securing funding for my family’s basic sustenance in expensive London.

41.  My rates for ad-hoc work beyond normal employment are set out in a recent salary slip which includes normal employment rates and ad-hoc work rates. I ask for all costs at my rate of pay in view of the wholly unreasonable conduct of the claimant. (Exhibit – Salary slip with ad-hoc work rate)

42.  The windshield visual safety during rain on my car XXXXXX was permanently affected by PCN PC28200936 and required additional advanced treatment which were financially non-viable even under insurance. I resorted to sale of the vehicle at 20% under market-value (sold for £2000 instead of market value of £2500) and ask for losses as directly resulting from vexatious behaviour of PCM (UK) Ltd (Exhibit - sale receipt attached, PCN date as circumstantial evidence of sale due to PCN)

 

Coupon-mad

You have no paragraph 3.

Remove this from para 2 because you aren't 'relying' on their WS:

"dated 20 May 2024, Claimant’s Witness Statement dated 24 June 2025"

And the Costs Assessment is a separate sheet, so it doesn't continue with the same numbering. It does need signing and dating.  

Pedantic mode warning:

There's no such thing as a 'windshield' in the UK. That's an Americanism, like 'sidewalk' instead of pavement. Your judge will likely be a privately educated solicitor who will probably notice and wince at such things - so get them onside with 'windscreen'.

  

GrinFandango

Ah. fair point. Thanks for reading it over. Will correct.