PCN from PCM

Coupon-mad

Just include what you've got.

And expose the holes in their WS. Who signed it? Solicitor or just a paralegal at Gladstones?

See the thread by aza123 which has a recent WS with Chan & Akande

RV44

Coupon-mad said:

Just include what you've got.

And expose the holes in their WS. Who signed it? Solicitor or just a paralegal at Gladstones?

See the thread by aza123 which has a recent WS with Chan & Akande

It was a paralegal (and they can't attend the hearing) and I'm including elements from aza123's WS and other WSs where the paralegal's name has come up. With regards to Chan & Akande, after I filed my defence in 2024, the Judge directed Gladstones to be very clear on the nature of breach of contract and to file 'Particulars of the Claim' by a certain date. Gladstones then came back with a 'Particulars of the Claim' and below are the key highlights:

1. Their client is the approved and authorised parking management provider to the landlord. (With client-landlord contract as evidence)
2. The signage around the residential neighbourhood clearly points out that a valid parking permit must be displayed on the windscreen/dashboard AND that they do not operate on vehicle whitelist basis, a direct counterpoint to the defence filed (with photographs of the actual signage and aerial photographs of the neighbourhood with marked placements of the signage)
3. They claim the breach was because the parking permit was not displayed (with photographs of the vehicle, interior and exterior)

Based on the above, should I still use Chan & Akande?

Coupon-mad

Paralegal? Who?

Read the Mazur thread.

RV44

Coupon-mad said:

Paralegal? Who?

Read the Mazur thread.

Paralegal by the name Deanne Nevers.

RV44

Hi All, here is my first draft of the WS after having read a few recent WS threads. Please could you review. Please could you also let me know if I should include paragraphs 6-9 referencing Chan and Akande given my above comment where the Judge directed GS to provide 'Particulars of the Claim'.

WITNESS STATEMENT

1.              I am <name> of <address>, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief, and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.              In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account.  My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.              In a recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP EWHC 2341 (KB). Mr Justice Sheldon’s judgement was that supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. Only those who personally hold the necessary authorisation, or who fall within a statutory exemption, may conduct litigation. (See Exhibit 1)

4.              Quoting from the Claimant’s Witness Statement: “I am a Paralegal in the employment of Gladstones Solicitors Limited, who act for the Claimant in this matter. I have conduct of this action, subject to the supervision of my principal. The matters to which I refer within this witness statement are within my own knowledge or based on information provided to me by my client within the course of my instruction, save where expressly stated to the contrary. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on their behalf.”

5.              The paralegal, Deanne Nevers is not an authorised litigator by Solicitor Regulation Authority search of the Solicitors Register, and has admitted their conduct of the litigation, in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007. This is further detailed below in the following legal blogs:

 

[Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys Litigation Supervision] https://www.infolegal.co.uk/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigation-supervision/

 

 [Alarm Over High Court Bomb on Conduct of Litigation] https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/alarm-over-high-court-bomb-on-conduct-of-litigation

 

6.              I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators 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, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities.

7.              The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 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'. (See Exhibit 2)

8.              The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande(Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. (See Exhibit 2).

9.              I believe the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The PoCs lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. In fact, the present PoCs are even less detailed than those struck out in Chan and Akande, offering no factual basis for a cause of action.

Facts Known to the Defendant

10.           I confirm that I was both the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged incident, namely 31 May 2022.

11.           On that date, the vehicle bearing registration number XX was, to the best of my knowledge and belief, parked at <address>, which was my residence at the time.

12.           On 11 May 2022, I applied for and was issued a resident parking permit by the Claimant, Parking Control Management (UK) Limited, having provided all requisite documentation, including the vehicle registration certificate, the insurance certificate, and my Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreement. (See Exhibit 3 for the parking permit receipt issued by the Claimant.)

13.           From 14 May 2022 onwards, the resident parking permit was continuously displayed on the dashboard whenever the vehicle was parked at the residence.

14.           The permit was not affixed to the windscreen, as is standard practice, because I was due to vacate the property shortly thereafter.

15.           On 31 May 2022, I parked outside my residence. Due to persistent rainfall at the time, I prioritised escorting an ailing passenger into the property to ensure their safety and comfort.

16.           The Claimant’s Witness Statement asserts that the contravention photographs depict “a clear, dry day,” thereby disputing my explanation regarding the rain. However, upon close examination of the photographs exhibited by the Claimant (Exhibit GS4, specifically image sequence 7–12), rain droplets are clearly visible on the vehicle, which contradicts the Claimant’s assertion and renders it inaccurate.

17.           Once the rain had subsided and after ensuring that my ailing passenger was safely attended to, I returned to the vehicle to properly display the parking permit, only to find that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) had already been affixed to the windscreen.

18.           The timestamps on the Claimant’s photographs (Exhibit GS4) indicate that all images were taken and the PCN issued between 19:51:12 and 19:51:59, a span of merely 47 seconds. This demonstrates that the enforcement was carried out in an excessively hasty manner, inconsistent with any reasonable interpretation of residents’ rights to peaceful enjoyment of their property. There is no legitimate interest in imposing an enhanced parking charge under such circumstances, particularly where the vehicle was lawfully entitled to park.

19.           On 13 June 2022, thirteen days after the alleged incident, I submitted an appeal against the PCN, explaining the circumstances and confirming that I held a valid parking permit. The Claimant responded on 17 June 2022 with a generic, boilerplate response, focusing on the grammar of my appeal rather than its substantive content (referenced in Claimant’s Witness Statement Exhibit GS6).

20.           I submitted a further appeal on 1 July 2022, reiterating the circumstances and acknowledging that I was the driver. This appeal was summarily rejected without meaningful consideration. Thereafter, I began receiving a series of letters demanding payment and threatening debt collection action.

21.           The Claimant was in possession of all relevant details, including the vehicle registration certificate provided when the parking permit was issued, yet chose to disregard both the validity of the permit and the reasonable explanation for its temporary non-display.

22.           The Claimant refers to an agreement with the landowner (Exhibit GS1); however, this purported agreement fails to specify the dates during which it was applicable and enforceable.

 

I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claim on the following grounds:

• The individual acting as litigator is not authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).
• The circumstances on the date of the alleged incident—namely, escorting an ailing passenger during adverse weather—took precedence over the brief failure to display a valid permit.
• The Claimant’s evidence is inaccurate and does not reflect the actual conditions on the date in question.
• The Claimant has not demonstrated any loss or damage, nor any lawful basis for pursuing a claim for such loss.
• The Claimant has not incurred any damages or indemnity costs as vaguely asserted in the original Particulars of Claim dated 2022.

 

23.           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.

 

24.           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).

 

25.            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.

 

26.           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'.

 

27.           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'.

 

28.           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.

 

29.           This claim is an utter waste of court resources, and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

 

Costs Assessment

Given the significant time and effort required to defend this unjust claim, I respectfully request that the court consider awarding costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I have spent considerable time researching, preparing this statement, and attending the hearing. My estimated costs for this are as follows:

XXXX

I request that the court considers these costs in its judgment, given the claimant's unreasonable behaviour in pursuing this claim without merit.

 

 

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.

 

 

Defendant’s signature:

 

Date: 

 

 

 

Coupon-mad

Who signed the Claim Form itself?

RV44

Coupon-mad said:

Who signed the Claim Form itself?

You mean the "Particulars of the Claim"? Another legal assistant from GS - Davina U

Coupon-mad

RV44 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Who signed the Claim Form itself?

You mean the "Particulars of the Claim"? Another legal assistant from GS - Davina U

Perfect!

Read Mazur. We have a thread on it.

RV44

Coupon-mad said:

RV44 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Who signed the Claim Form itself?

You mean the "Particulars of the Claim"? Another legal assistant from GS - Davina U

Perfect!

Read Mazur. We have a thread on it.

Correction:

1. The Claim Form itself was signed by Frances Bennett, who appears on the SRA as a solicitor working for GS
2. The defence filed included Chan and Akande, which MAY have led the judge to direct GS to provide further 'Particulars of the Claim'.
3. This 'Particulars of the Claim' was signed by a legal assistant
4. The WS was signed by a Paralegal

Having followed the Mazur thread, there is example where the Judge dismissed the Mazur reference as the original Claim Form (which albeit did not state the breach of contract) was still signed by a Solicitor (Authorised employee of GS). I am still going to include this in the WS, but wanted to correct.

Coupon-mad

I agree that 3 and 4 suggest that an unauthorised non solicitor is overstepping the mark.