PCM UK LTD / MOORSIDE LEGAL CLAIM

Coupon-mad

I think if you have time yes, add some photo evidence of LACK of signs. No close ups except one for us to see here please.

MrTottenham123

Pictures attached below. Would this be considered as a lack of signs? Also includes a pic of the ‘yellow hatched box’ that basically caused this fine.

Am I good to include all of these pics for my evidence (not the close up) despite my WS focusing on lack of information / POC? If so should I then include as to why not damages or the businesses wasn’t affected at all because it was late at night and I was not causing an obstruction to any of the businesses in the background. 

Cheers

MrTottenham123

Further pics attached 

Coupon-mad

Just put in the final photo only.

None of the signs.

Get your bundle emailed to your court & the solicitors today, as it's late. No apology and no drawing attention to the lateness.

MrTottenham123

Just finishing it up now (with some wine) as it’s my bday tomorrow! 

Should I express how I was not obstructing any businesses or access at 9/10pm at night also? Or what I should I include regarding the yellow hatched box?

Car1980

Don't mention any of that, but do mention the fact it was 9pm and dark and there were no illuminated or even reflective signs to be seen.

Coupon-mad

That there were no signs in view and no entrance sign to alert drivers. Even the Claimant's own evidence photo shows several vehicles parked in a straight and organised manner and no contractual terms were seen. Later, during the course of this claim, you found an unlit, unremarkable and faded sign on a far wall which failed to create a contractual agreement because it said 'no parking' (buried in small print) which is a prohibitive statement with no valuable consideration offered. 

MrTottenham123

Thanks both! Just finishing the last touches now and then I’ll post a draft copy shortly.

@Coupon-mad when you said just include the last photo, there were two separate comments with pictures. Was it just the picture of the sign or the yellow hatched box for me to include?

MrTottenham123

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1.      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.

2.      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 1)

3.      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)

4.      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.

 

5. Purpose of this Statement

 

5.1 This Witness Statement is made in response to the Claimant’s claim regarding an alleged parking incident in March 2022, over three years ago. I deny liability.

 

5.2 As of 24 November 2025, the Claimant has still not served any witness statement or evidence upon me. This has left me without the information required to properly understand or respond to their case.

 

5.3 The Particulars of Claim (“POC”) are so vague and generic that they fail to disclose a clear cause of action. My evidence below relies heavily on the lack of clarity and non-compliance with CPR requirements.

 

6. Vague and Inadequate Particulars of Claim

 

6.1 The Claimant provided only a short, template-style POC via Money Claims Online, containing no description of conduct, signage, contractual terms, or factual foundation.

 

6.2 In line with the persuasive appeal authorities:

- Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (HHJ Murch, 15/08/2023)

- CPMS v Akande (HHJ Evans, 10/05/2024)

 

6.3 The Claimant’s POC fail CPR 16.4(1)(e) and PD 16 paragraphs 3 and 7.5.

 

6.4 As a litigant in person, I have been left unable to understand their case with any certainty. This prejudice has continued because the Claimant has not provided any evidence at all.

 

7. Lack of Evidence and Prejudice

 

7.1 Despite the passage of over three years, the Claimant has failed to serve any witness statement, photographs, signage plan, site map, contract, or other supporting documents.

 

7.2 This failure is unreasonable and has caused significant prejudice.

 

8. The Alleged Incident (Night-Time and Poor Visibility)

 

8.1 I have only a faint recollection of the alleged visit due to the time elapsed. I recall that it was night-time and dark.

 

8.2 There was no illuminated signage, no reflective signs, and no visible entrance sign at the time.

 

8.3 There were no visible or legible contractual terms.

 

9. Later discovery of a Small, Obscure, Prohibitive Sign.

 

9.1 During preparation, I found a single small, faded, unlit sign on a distant wall.

 

9.2 This sign was not illuminated, faded, and not readable unless approached closely.

 

9.3 The sign stated “no parking,” which is a prohibitive statement and cannot create a contract.

 

10. Lack of Contract and Clarity

 

10.1 The signage and layout at J31 Park did not offer a clear or readable contract to motorists. For a contract to be enforceable, the terms must be clearly displayed and communicated before any alleged breach. That was not the case in this instance, especially in low-light conditions with no illuminated signage or road markings. No agreement could have been formed. The signage must be read in order for you to enter a contract with the landowner and the fact that you must stop your vehicle before being able to read the sign means you have already broke any contract before being able to enter a conract.

 

11. I submit that their evidence fails to show that the terms were clearly displayed and accessible, particularly in darkness. As per the guidance in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, adequate notice of terms is essential to enforceability.

 

12. In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, it was held that a person cannot be bound by contractual terms if they had no reasonable opportunity to see them. That principle directly applies here.

13. In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, the court held that terms must be presented before or at the time of contract formation — not after entry. In this case, signage was not visible or clear enough at entry.

 

14. The 'red hand rule' from Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 further supports that any onerous or unusual terms (such as penalty charges) must be made extremely prominent, which they were not in this instance.

 

15. In National Car Parks v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 854, the court recognised that entering a car park alone does not constitute acceptance of terms where payment or clarity is absent. That also applies in my case.

 

 

16. Inadequate Notice & CRA Requirements

 

16.1 Any purported terms were not prominent as required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

16.2 At night, with no illumination or entrance sign, the Claimant cannot meet the test of adequate notice under relevant case law.

 

 

17. Quantum and Additional Sums

 

17.1 I deny the Claimant’s inflated claim entirely. The added sums are an attempt at double recovery.

 

 

 

 

18. Conclusion

 

18.1 The Claimant has failed to provide evidence, failed to particularise the claim, and relied on hidden, prohibitive signage.

 

18.2 I respectfully request the Court to strike out or dismiss the claim.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 15 because that case is very different and all about a pay & display site.

It's good but you need a better conclusion and your signed/dated costs sheet at £24 per hour.

@aza123 is recent & like yours, has Chan & Akande, so look at & copy chunks from that one. I wouldn't add ANY photos on reflection. Anything you add is making their case for them.