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

GrinFandango

I have a more robust version nearly ready

GrinFandango

Final version before submission - please comment 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

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

---

1.     I am XXXXX. 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 expand upon relevant points herein to assist the Court.

---

Inadequate Particulars of Claim (POC)

3.     I draw attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim when the POC lacks details of breach of contract, with prejudice suffered by the defendant in establishing a suitable defence and witness statement. 

4.     Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that '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 in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. (Exhibit – G)

5.     A similar case was dismissed and later appealed by a parking company only to be dismissed again on the basis of an inadequate POC CPMS v Akande (KODP5J30) in 2024 (Exhibit – G)

---

Facts and Sequence of Events

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

7.     I deny the Claimant’s allegation a parking contract was formed as only loading/unloading activity took place at my residence, the xxxx site. The Claimant also fails to produce observation time.

8.     For the purpose of parking, I utilised various parking options available to me which included 24-hours free street parking available at xxx Avenue, xxx Avenue, xxx Road and xxx Road, all within a 3-10 min walk radius of xxxxx. (Exhibit – F)

9.     Expanding on the circumstances involving PCN in Nov 2022 and consecutive PCNs in Dec 2022, my wife and I were involved in furnishing the apartment having acquired residence in October 2022. 

10.   I was advised by building management (xxx) the process to obtaining temporary permits for loading/unloading was by calling PCM (UK) Ltd, the Claimant. Despite all our efforts, including staying on the phone-line in excess of 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 approval. This was escalated to xxx. (Exhibit –

11.   I deny the claimant’s claim that due appeal process was not utilised. Our complaints regarding system inaccessibility were raised with PCM (UK) Ltd. and xxx (Exhibit – .

12.   During the December 2022 to New Year 2023 period, I was gradually furnishing and decorating the flat. This involved 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 utilised an unmarked space near the entrance which, due to its location and appearance, seemed intentionally unmarked for such activity and did not block the roadway or exits. I always left a note in my vehicle stating “Moving House” to communicate reason for presence of vehicle for loading/unloading activity to PCM (UK) Ltd. (Exhibit – C)

13.   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 Landowner agreement (“Authority to Operate”) was prematurely terminated by xxx at xxxx site, which includes xxxx.

14.   In demonstrating wholly unreasonable behaviour by PCM (UK) Ltd., I refer to PCN issued during loading/unloading activities in May 2025 when my wife was nearing the end of pregnancy and it was difficult for her to walk the distance to the parked car. The claimant glued three PCN envelopes directly to the centre of my windscreen, impairing visibility and limiting use of the vehicle. The glue also caused lasting smear damage to the windscreen in the driver’s direct line of sight, severely impacting visibility during rain. This directly led to sale of my vehicle early June 2025 at 20% less than market value (£2,000 instead of £2,500) as windscreen replacement costs were unaffordable (Exhibit – D)

15.   I personally witnessed PCM (UK) Ltd unreasonable conduct with multiple PCNs issued to virtually all cars on-site – including those with valid permits – in what was described by a resident as "super PCN days." I approached a warden in employ of PCM (UK) Ltd. to identify incentives. I was informed PCM (UK) Ltd 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 fairness of employment practices and lack of perverted incentives.

16.   I received information from xxx 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 –

---

Exaggerated Claim

17.   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.

18.   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.”

19.   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

20.   Beyond the signage at the site being small, unclear, and unlit, provisions for resident loading/unloading were omitted. 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.

21.   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 as there exists no commercial justification and the signage fails the CRA test.

22.   Specifically, the signs at xxxx House were not in prominent positions, not lit in low-light conditions, and no terms relating to loading/unloading nor bays marked for resident loading/unloading were visible. 

---

Standing and Keeper Liability

23.   The Claimant has not proven it has authority from the landowner to enter into contracts or bring legal proceedings.

24.   I submit evidence of a professional dispute between xxx and PCM (UK) Ltd. which likely resulted in early termination of contract. (Exhibit –  

25.   It is to be noted as a matter-of-fact National Parking Control (UK) Ltd. are currently in possession of Landowner agreement (“authority to operate”) in lieu of markings at the same site in xxxx. (Exhibit – . I put PCM (UK) Ltd. to strict proof of a valid Landowner agreement (“authority to operate’’).

26.   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.

 

---

Residential Rights Relevance

 

27.   The PCNs issued during loading/unloading in a residential setting at periods of genuine cause, were not only disproportionate but unreasonable. This was not a public car park; it was my home.

28.   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. (Exhibit – G)

Predatory and Unreasonable Conduct

29.   I refer to Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 where the award of costs for “unreasonable conduct” should be allowed. I also make note of Lord Justice Vos clarification on “wasted costs” to be met by the party’s legal (or other) representative in consideration of the unreasonable/unprofessional conduct by legal representative (i.e. Gladstones solicitors in this case)

30.   PCM (UK) Ltd. was aware their Landowner agreement (“authority to operate”) had been revoked by xxx, yet they consider it appropriate to state as a statement of truth in court (by means of legal representation) that they are actively involved in management of the site to justify litigation. The court may find contempt in such deliberate manipulation of fact by means of provision of partial information, false claims and omission of pertinent facts. 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 led to abrupt termination of PCM (UK) Ltd. I provide direct evidence available to me (Exhibit –

31.   I provide further evidence of the negligent and vexatious conduct by PCM (UK) Ltd. by sharing official PCM (UK) Ltd images of PCN PC282xxx. Demonstrated in the images from PCM (UK) Ltd, 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 vexatious actions (Exhibit – D). 

32.   PCM (UK) Ltd and those acting on behalf of the claimant, including but not limited to TRACE UK (Ltd), made every effort to intimidate and cajole the respondent into submission, demonstrating intimidation and directly leading to distress, mental anguish and sense of insecurity in my own home. (Exhibit – E)

33.   In light of the above Dammermann should apply for the reward of costs to the Defendant associated with unreasonable conduct by PCM (UK) Ltd, its associated debt-recovery services (Trace UK Ltd) and its legal representatives (Gladstones Solicitors) in pursuing this case.

---

Conclusion

34.   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.

35.   I respectfully ask the Court to:

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

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

c)     Consider a finding of unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(f) and CPR 27.14(2)(g) and award appropriate costs; including where the Court finds agency exists, consider the award of costs inter alia.  

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.

38.   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: 4 July 2025

 

---

 

Coupon-mad

Looks OK but how come more than one Exhibit is 'G' and they are presented out of alphabetical order? Why aren't they simply numbered in chronological order of you mentioning them in the WS, by putting your initials then a number:

i.e.
if your name is Norman Wisdom, your exhibits would be NW1. NW2, NW3 & so on.

GrinFandango

Exhibits are PDF documents with multiple pages - i.e. Email trail and photo relevant to the case point. Hence same exhibit applicable more than once.  

Fair point about initials - This has been removed intentionally for dissemination. The original document has exhibits with my initials. 

Once again, @Coupon-mad , thanks for being present on this forum to read these documents for hundreds of forum users. I cannot fathom how you do it. 

1505grandad

Just checking  -  para 14  -  is this date a typo?:-

"I refer to PCN issued during loading/unloading activities in May 2025 when my wife ....."

GrinFandango

Good catch - this should be 2023 - Thank you - 

GrinFandango

GrinFandango said:

Good catch - this should be 2023 - Thank you - 

And June 2023 is when I sold the car - 

GrinFandango

Do I need to do a Skelton argument? or is that just for the claimant? 

Coupon-mad

No need.