Residential lease Gladstones witness statement help please, Hearing in just over 2 weeks!

Coupon-mad

"I would prefer to avoid having to write a WS and attend the hearing if possible."

You can't, unless the claim is struck out.

" I have now emailed the court to request the claim to be struck out (as the court papers had mentioned)."

Good! You have done the right thing.

But you really should:

• write a WS now (because usually Gs do pay the hearing fee) and
• also tell the court and Gladstones your new address and move date and
• also set up post forwarding for a fee to Royal Mail (like most sensible people do when they move and certainly when in the midst of a court case).

The claim was in March 2024. How has this taken TWO YEARS to reach a hearing?!

You just need to copy & adapt a WS with your lease and photos of the bays & car park and with the transcripts of Chan and Akande as exhibits too. Loads here! Search the forum for Gladstones witness statement.

aa5085

Yes exactly it's taken this long that I genuinely thought everyone had forgotten about it including claimant. I checked again today and although they told me the claimant hasn't paid the trial fee the hearing is still active which means grudgingly I will have to write a written statement and maybe even attend. The hearing is about 19 days away so I need to get on with this but it's come at such a bad time. I guess I hadn't planned it earlier simply because it had dragged on for so long.

I will post it here once complete if that's ok as will really need all your help to get me through this.

Coupon-mad

To give you a steer, recent WS include:

@Feyla

@Char27

@aza123

At least one of those has Chan & Akande as exhibits.

You could also search for:

Gladstones witness statement

and

Residential lease witness statement.

Always change the search to show NEWEST.

aa5085

Thanks @Coupon-mad :)

Could you or others have a look at this witness statement for me. Also would I definitely need to include the lease. I can't find it anywhere so would the title deed be acceptable where it mentions my allocated parking space. I could request the lease from the land registry but it may take a few days. Also do you have links to the chan, Beavis and Jopson cases so I can attach them as exhibits?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: xxxx

Between:

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

Claimant

-and-

XX

Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XX

I, xx, of [XX], am the Defendant in this matter. I make this witness statement in support of my defence. The facts stated are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

1. Introduction

1.1 I am the leaseholder of XX, having held legal title since 23 June 2016.

1.2 This statement is made in response to the Claimant’s claim and the Particulars of Claim ("PoC"), which I believe to be deficient and lacking in detail.

2. Deficiencies in the Particulars of Claim

2.1 The PoC are vague, generic, and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.

2.2 The PoC do not clearly state:

• The specific contractual terms allegedly breached
• The conduct said to constitute the breach
• The legal basis for the sum claimed

2.3 As a result, I have been significantly disadvantaged in understanding the case against me.

2.4 I rely on the persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Exhibit A), where similar deficient particulars were found inadequate.

3. My Leasehold Rights (Primacy of Contract)

3.1 My lease (Exhibit B) grants me the right to park in an allocated space (Bay 48) and to use the wider parking areas at the development.

3.2 There is no requirement within my lease to display a permit or to pay penalties to any third party.

3.3 The Claimant is a third-party contractor and is not a party to my lease. They cannot override my pre-existing rights.

3.4 No variation of my lease has been agreed, nor has any vote under section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 been carried out to permit such changes.

4. The Incident

4.1 On the date of the alleged contravention in 2023, I returned home and found my allocated parking space (Bay 48) occupied by another vehicle.

4.2 In order to resolve this, I temporarily parked my vehicle in an unmarked space adjacent to my allocated bay.

4.3 I then left my vehicle for a short period (a few minutes) to locate the driver of the vehicle occupying my space or to seek assistance from building management.

4.4 Upon returning, I discovered that a parking charge notice had been issued to my vehicle.

4.5 At all times, my actions were reasonable and necessary in order to access my own parking space.

5. No Contract with the Claimant

5.1 I did not enter into any contract with the Claimant.

5.2 Any signage present cannot override my leasehold rights.

5.3 The signage at the site is unclear, with small font and insufficient prominence, and is incapable of forming a binding contract. (Exhibit C)

5.4 The signage is prohibitive in nature and does not offer a contractual licence to park, meaning no contract could be formed.

6. Authority and Standing

6.1 The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have authority from the landowner to:

• Operate on the land
• Enter into contracts with residents
• Bring legal proceedings in their own name

6.2 I do not believe such authority exists, particularly where it interferes with leaseholder rights.

7. Distinction from ParkingEye v Beavis

7.1 The Claimant may rely on ParkingEye v Beavis (Exhibit D); however, that case is clearly distinguishable.

7.2 Unlike Beavis:

• This is a residential setting
• I have pre-existing rights under a lease
• There is no legitimate interest in penalising residents

8. Temporary Parking / Loading

8.1 My actions fall squarely within the principles established in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] (Exhibit E), where temporary stopping for legitimate purposes was held not to be parking.

8.2 I was temporarily stopped only to resolve the obstruction of my own allocated bay.

9. Evidence from Managing Agent

9.1 I rely on email correspondence from the property managing agent, including a response from director XX, attached as Exhibit F.

9.2 In that correspondence, XX confirms that the contract with the Claimant was terminated in May 2024 and states that the Claimant’s conduct towards leaseholders was problematic.

9.3 In particular, he states that the Claimant was:

• “being nasty to leaseholders, impossible to negotiate on PCNs cancellations”
• “deliberately making their hours shorter so no one could contact them”
• and that there was a “persistent feeling among leaseholders that PCM is deliberately going after soft easy targets – such as leaseholders instead of the real rogues.”

9.4 He further confirms that the parking regime has since been replaced, indicating dissatisfaction with the Claimant’s operation and conduct on the site.

9.5 This evidence supports my position that the parking scheme was not being operated in a fair or reasonable manner and was being used against legitimate residents rather than for its intended purpose of deterring unauthorised parking.

9.6 It also supports my understanding that residents, such as myself, were not the intended targets of enforcement, particularly in circumstances where I was attempting to access my own allocated parking space.

9.7 I respectfully submit that this independent evidence from the managing agent significantly undermines the credibility and reasonableness of the Claimant’s case. This demonstrates that the Claimant’s conduct was not only unreasonable in my individual case, but formed part of a wider pattern of behaviour toward residents.

10. Unlawful Additional Charges

9.1 The Claimant has added additional sums to the original charge.

9.2 These sums are not genuine losses and represent an attempt at double recovery.

9.3 The claimed amount exceeds the £100 industry cap and is contrary to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

11. Consumer Rights Act 2015

10.1 The terms relied upon by the Claimant are unfair and not transparent.

10.2 The signage fails the requirement of prominence and clarity under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

12. Conclusion

11.1 I was exercising my lawful rights as a leaseholder.

11.2 No contract was formed with the Claimant.

11.3 The claim is without merit and should be dismissed.

13. 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: XX

Date: ________________________

Exhibits (to be attached)

• Exhibits: Chan case, Jopson case, Beavis case, Lease, Photographs of signage, correspondence with property management director

Car1980

Can you show us your lease?

Le_Kirk

Here is the link for: -

Chan_Akande

You can find Homeguard v Jopson and the Beavis v ParkingEye by asking Auntie Google

Coupon-mad

would the title deed be acceptable where it mentions my allocated parking space.

Yes but if you can find your lease then take it along to the hearing as well.

You need to refer to Akande as well as Chan, and exhibit both. Search the forum for Chan Akande and you'll find words to copy.

And you should add to your point about PCM having been sacked, by saying they had no authorisation to litigate against residents and you expect to see an unredacted copy of the site contract so that the judge can construe it properly.

You could add that no fair grace period was allowed; the images were taken within one minute flat which breaches the IPC Code of Practice on consideration periods. One minute is predatory and suggests a set up where the ticketer was lurking and may even have taken your bay to cause you a ticket. As such you expect a signed witness statement from PCM's ticketer and wish to cross-examine them at the hearing. A witness statement merely signed by staff at Gladstones would be hearsay and contrary to the well publicised 2025 authority of Mazur v Speechlys regarding conduct of litigation.

Finally, re the point about the inflated sum claimed - the double recovery of the false £60 or £70 'fee' - add the words currently in the Template Defence about HHJ Moloney's first Beavis judgment. Quote him and link to his judgment transcript, which proves that the £85 PCN in Beavis had to and did more than cover all the costs arising from an alleged breach, including 'the costs of enforcement' up to and including LBC.

But be aware that your bundle must not exceed 50 sides of A4 in total, if emailing it to the local court & Gladstones. You can use a free online PDF tool to merge and reduce the size of your exhibits if needed.

aa5085

Thanks all. This is the revised version. @Coupon-mad I missed out the mazur vs speechlys section only because I cannot remember how long they had taken pictures over. Did not want to risk it in case they have got proof over 4-5 minutes etc. It was so long ago now I can hardly remember. The rest of it I have incorporated including a costing section but not sure if this would look a bit too arrogant in front of the judge?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: xxxx

Between:

Parking Control Management (UK) Limited

Claimant

-and-

XX

Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF XX

I, xx, of [XX], am the Defendant in this matter. I make this witness statement in support of my defence. The facts stated are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

1. Introduction

1.1 I am the leaseholder of XX, having held legal title since 23 June 2016.

1.2 This statement is made in response to the Claimant’s claim and the Particulars of Claim ("PoC"), which I believe to be deficient and lacking in detail.

2. Deficiencies in the Particulars of Claim

2.1 The PoC are vague, generic, and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.

2.2 The PoC do not clearly state:

• The specific contractual terms allegedly breached
• The conduct said to constitute the breach
• The legal basis for the sum claimed

2.3 As a result, I have been significantly disadvantaged in understanding the case against me.

2.4 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 (and the first is about this same Claimant).  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.

2.5 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 the 15 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 )

2.6. 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 the 10 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 )

2.7 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.

2.8. 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.

3. My Leasehold Rights (Primacy of Contract)

3.1 My lease (Exhibit B) grants me the right to park in an allocated space (Bay 48) and to use the wider parking areas at the development.

3.2 There is no requirement within my lease to display a permit or to pay penalties to any third party.

3.3 The Claimant is a third-party contractor and is not a party to my lease. They cannot override my pre-existing rights.

3.4 No variation of my lease has been agreed, nor has any vote under section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 been carried out to permit such changes.

4. The Incident

4.1 On the date of the alleged contravention in 2023, I returned home and found my allocated parking space (Bay 48) occupied by another vehicle.

4.2 In order to resolve this, I temporarily parked my vehicle in an unmarked space adjacent to my allocated bay.

4.3 I then left my vehicle for a short period (a few minutes) to locate the driver of the vehicle occupying my space or to seek assistance from building management.

4.4 Upon returning, I discovered that a parking charge notice had been issued to my vehicle.

4.5 At all times, my actions were reasonable and necessary in order to access my own parking space.

5. No Contract with the Claimant

5.1 I did not enter into any contract with the Claimant.

5.2 Any signage present cannot override my leasehold rights.

5.3 The signage at the site is unclear, with small font and insufficient prominence, and is incapable of forming a binding contract. (Exhibit C)

5.4 The signage is prohibitive in nature and does not offer a contractual licence to park, meaning no contract could be formed.

6. Authority and Standing

6.1 The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have authority from the landowner to:

• Operate on the land
• Enter into contracts with residents
• Bring legal proceedings in their own name

6.2 I do not believe such authority exists, particularly where it interferes with leaseholder rights.

7. Distinction from ParkingEye v Beavis

7.1 The Claimant may rely on ParkingEye v Beavis (Exhibit D); however, that case is clearly distinguishable.

7.2 Unlike Beavis:

• This is a residential setting
• I have pre-existing rights under a lease
• There is no legitimate interest in penalising residents

8. Temporary Parking / Loading

8.1 My actions fall squarely within the principles established in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] (Exhibit E), where temporary stopping for legitimate purposes was held not to be parking.

8.2 I was temporarily stopped only to resolve the obstruction of my own allocated bay.

9. Evidence from Managing Agent

9.1 I rely on email correspondence from the property managing agent, including a response from director XX, attached as Exhibit F.

9.2 In that correspondence, XX confirms that the contract with the Claimant was terminated in May 2024 and states that the Claimant’s conduct towards leaseholders was problematic.

9.3 In particular, he states that the Claimant was:

• “being nasty to leaseholders, impossible to negotiate on PCNs cancellations”
• “deliberately making their hours shorter so no one could contact them”
• and that there was a “persistent feeling among leaseholders that PCM is deliberately going after soft easy targets – such as leaseholders instead of the real rogues.”

9.4 He further confirms that the parking regime has since been replaced, indicating dissatisfaction with the Claimant’s operation and conduct on the site.

9.5 This evidence supports my position that the parking scheme was not being operated in a fair or reasonable manner and was being used against legitimate residents rather than for its intended purpose of deterring unauthorised parking.

9.6 It also supports my understanding that residents, such as myself, were not the intended targets of enforcement, particularly in circumstances where I was attempting to access my own allocated parking space. The parking scheme had no authorisation to litigate against residents and therefore I would like to see an unredacted copy of the site contract so that the judge can construe it properly.

9.7 I respectfully submit that this independent evidence from the managing agent significantly undermines the credibility and reasonableness of the Claimant’s case. This demonstrates that the Claimant’s conduct was not only unreasonable in my individual case, but formed part of a wider pattern of behaviour toward residents.

10. Unlawful Additional Charges

10.1 The Claimant has added additional sums to the original charge.

10.2 The Claimant is seeking £170 for the PCN, which includes "damages.” In accordance with the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the £100 industry cap is intended to cover all operating costs. Regarding the added £70 fee for the PCN, I rely on the judgment of HHJ Moloney QC in the initial Beavis hearing, who held that the parking charge itself was intended to cover the costs of the automated letter-chain and generate a profit. Adding £70 per ticket is an attempt at "double recovery" and an abuse of the court process. As held in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), inflating a parking charge with ‘admin costs’ appears penal. Since the Claimant has provided no breakdown of costs or an explanation of how this sum had been calculated, it can only be viewed as a punitive charge for the Defendant, which is contrary to established legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties

11. Consumer Rights Act 2015

11.1 The terms relied upon by the Claimant are unfair and not transparent.

11.2 The signage fails the requirement of prominence and clarity under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

12. Impact on the Defendant

12.1 The ongoing issues surrounding these parking charges have caused considerable stress and disruption particularly as I have a newborn at home (born few days ago) and I am also in the process of moving house currently.

12.3 The time required to deal with correspondence, appeals and legal proceedings has been substantial.

13. Conclusion

13. 1 This claim is an utter waste of court resources and 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. 

13.2  For the reasons above, I respectfully request the Court dismiss the claim.

14. My costs

I am seeking costs pursuant to CPR 27.14.

1. Loss of Earnings (Attendance at Hearing)

• Half day attendance at Court (capped): £95.00

2. Litigant in Person Costs (Preparation Time)

• Preparation time: 12 hours
• Litigant in person rate: £19 per hour

Subtotal: £228.00

3. Travel/Parking Costs 

• Travel to and from Court: Estimated £20

5. Printing and Administrative Costs

• Printing, paper, postage: £15.00

Total costs claimed: £358

15. 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: XX

Date: ________________________

Coupon-mad

"I missed out the mazur vs speechlys section only because I cannot remember how long they had taken pictures over. Did not want to risk it in case they have got proof over 4-5 minutes etc."

I'm sorry … what? The advice I gave about that has nothing to do with that.

aa5085

@Coupon-mad sorry I meant this bit you mentioned:

You could add that no fair grace period was allowed; the images were taken within one minute flat which breaches the IPC Code of Practice on consideration periods. One minute is predatory and suggests a set up where the ticketer was lurking and may even have taken your bay to cause you a ticket. As such you expect a signed witness statement from PCM's ticketer and wish to cross-examine them at the hearing. A witness statement merely signed by staff at Gladstones would be hearsay and contrary to the well publicised 2025 authority of Mazur v Speechlys regarding conduct of litigation.

You mentioned one minute but I am not sure how long the images were taken over when they gave me a ticket.

I have mentioned everything else you said.

Does the witness statement look reasonable to proceed with? If so I was going to email this to the specified county court and Gladstone solicitors. Should I also hand deliver this? I won't be able to hand deliver it until Monday as unable to attend tomorrow and obviously it's closed over weekend. Then Monday it will be around 15 days pre-hearing which should be ok I'm hoping?