JD Gym/Jardines Parking - Milton Keynes

Coupon-mad

Send the court your proof of surgery and ask them to move the date as a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010 because you will be too immobile and disabled in July to attend court. Tell them because this is a request for a reasonable adjustment under the EA, the court service cannot charge a fee for it.

Re hearing prep, that's in the NEWBIES thread (WS and exhibits stage) and certainly DOESN'T involve rocking up with only a defence and no witness statement having been served!

Your Hearing Order tells you this.

Burnt_Roti116

Coupon-mad said:

Send the court your proof of surgery and ask them to move the date as a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010 because you will be too immobile and disabled in July to attend court. Tell them because this is a request for a reasonable adjustment under the EA, the court service cannot charge a fee for it.

Re hearing prep, that's in the NEWBIES thread (WS and exhibits stage) and certainly DOESN'T involve rocking up with only a defence and no witness statement having been served!

Your Hearing Order tells you this.

thanks, will start working on WS.

I've searched the thread and cant seem to find an email for northampton country court, all I've found online is enquiries@northampton.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk. I have sent a date change request to this email but haven't received a confirmation receipt. Should I follow up via post?

Nellymoser

I think the ending of that email is wrong
Try this:

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/

Burnt_Roti116

So have received the claimants WS and it mentions the following:
"my company would like the court to note that the defendant is using a generic defense which can be found on the internet and it is highly doubtful that the defendant would understand the complexities of all the references to the civil procedure rules, the requirements in the protection and freedoms act (POFA) and in established law, which is often the case when a defendant is questioned about such references at court. therefore, everything that the defendant has outlined is not accepted and denied by my company"

is this something that is being picked up on more and more and is this anything to worry about?

Currently I am drafting my WS and will post here once completed

Coupon-mad

Search the forum. Discussed & laughed at!

Burnt_Roti116

with the WS, does this follow suite of emailing to both gladstones and court? or does this one need to be a hard copy?
Its just that I have emailed enquiries.northampton.countycourt@justice.gov.uk before and have not received a response from them... Just making me think maybe this time it needs to be a hard copy..?

Coupon-mad

Ring them and ask.*

Usually they'll accept up to 50 pages by email (and we don't recommend a hard copy as it's expensive & fiddly).


*edit - not Gladstones, obviously!

Burnt_Roti116

Please see my WS below. I managed to get the correct email address so will send this through shortly.

INTRODUCTION

1.      I make this Witness Statement (hereinafter referred to as WS) in readiness for the hearing listed on 3rd July 2025 at Northampton County Court and in support of my Defence against the Claimant’s claim.

 

2.      Within this statement, I shall refer to various documents (See Exhibits 1 - 10) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is as follows:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.      (See Exhibit 5) The Department for transport's Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges, 6.2 states: Where a contravention is detected remotely (such as by cameras), the landholder may request registered keeper data from the DVLA immediately and must write to the registered keeper within 14 days seeking details of the driver or payment of the parking charge. The PCN issue date was issued on 7th March 2024, the contravention date was 16th February 2024, 20 days after the alleged contravention.

4.      (See Exhibit 6) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). As no notice was placed on the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention, the requirements of POFA 2012 have not been met. POFA mandates that a Notice to Driver must be issued on the vehicle or handed directly to the driver for the charge to be enforceable against the registered keeper. The failure to issue a Notice to Driver renders the current charge unenforceable under POFA.

POFA 2012 cites: “The notice must be given by—

(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.’’

The applicable section here is (b) as the Parking Charge Notice was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended”

The contravention notice was issued after 20 days.

5.      The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) 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 based in the following persuasive authority.

6.      A recent persuasive appeal judgment in 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. (See Exhibit 7)

 

7.      Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (See Exhibit 9)

 

8.      Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning.

 

9.      Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices.

 

10. The Defendant believes 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 specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the Defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

 

Facts and Sequence of events.

11. I am a member of JD Gyms at Winterhill and have been since the days it used to be called Excercise4Less. This complex was shared by one other business – Pure Gym (See Exhibit 1). So the parking spaces were either for JD Gym members of Pure Gym members (marked by their respective logos in each parking spot).

12. I used to consistently park in the car parking spots near the entrance/exit as it made it easier to leave the premises once I had finished using the gym (See Exhibit 2).

13. Around mid-end of February 2024, parking bollards were installed but never raised in the parking spots I used to frequently park my car (see Exhibit 2). After seeing numerous people continue to park there, I followed suite with no repercussions. I did not receive any letter or notice from JD Gyms or any other business to move my vehicle, nor did I see any new business logo in the parking spots.

14. On the night of 16th February 2024 at 22:44, I proceeded to park at my usual car park spot and went to the gym for just over an hour. It wasn’t until I had finished my workout and was returning to my car when a fellow gym visitor had mentioned the fine he received a few days earlier for parking in a spot a few spots away from me. It was only then I noticed the new signage in the dark.

15. I read the sign and it stated all visitors must enter their name and registration at the kiosk provided inside the premises. I went back to JD Gym to query this and I was advised to visit the new Jardines office next door. As the Jardines site was shut I was unable to go inside and enter my car registration details.

16. Once the fine letter came through, I visited the Jardines office during office hours to see if they could help revoke the fine but was told that the car parking spots were now owned by Euro Parking Services and that there was nothing else they could do. They did sympathise as I wasn’t the only person to visit them as numerous people had visited them after being caught out in a similar position as myself.

17. During the whole process of Jardines being part of the winterhill complex, there was no communication or warning from either JD Gyms or Jardines to state that a select number of JD Gym car parking spots would now belong to Jardines, nor were there any new signs at the entrance of the complex as they still show big signs form Pure Gym and JD Gyms (See Exhibit 3). So for people to notice new signs in the dark at a 24 hour gym whilst driving was always going to cause issues especially in (at the time) a poorly lit car park (See Exhibit 4). For reference Exhibit 3 and 4 were taken on 24th March 2025, more than a year after the alleged offence, which shows it still hasn’t been rectified by Jardines.

18. No Windscreen PCN: It is denied that a windscreen notice was ever attached to notify me of this alleged contravention on 16th February 2024.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

1. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.
2. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.
3. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action.

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

1. Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.

 

23. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

 

 

Unenforceable Additional Costs

24.  In Exhibit MK-2 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, it is stated that the signage provides for a "Parking Charge in the sum of £100, plus additional costs if the same remains unpaid." However, I submit that these "additional costs" are not defined anywhere in the signage or contract terms allegedly relied upon by the claimant, rendering them vague and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA), which requires that contract terms be both fair and transparent.

 

25.  As per the claimant’s schedule of losses section 2ii, the claimant has added £70 per Parking Charge Notice (PCN), claiming this as "contractual costs as per the contract terms and conditions." However, these additional costs are not referred to or specified on the signage at the site. The claimant cannot impose additional costs that are not clearly stated in the contract (assuming a contract even existed, which is disputed). This lack of transparency violates Schedule 2, Paragraph 10 of the CRA, which prohibits unfair terms 'that have the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.'

 

Penalty Charge, Not Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss

 

26. Furthermore, these additional costs appear to be arbitrary and penal in nature. Under established law principles, such as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015], parking charges must either be a genuine pre-estimate of loss or commercially justified. In this case, the additional £70 is neither justified nor explained.

 

27. The claimant has provided no breakdown or explanation of how this amount was calculated or why it is appropriate. It can only be viewed as a punitive charge designed to penalise the defendant, which is contrary to established legal principles that prohibit excessive and unfair contractual penalties.

 

28. The claimant’s demand for additional costs of £70 per PCN is entirely baseless. It is not supported by any clear contractual term, it violates the CRA's requirements for fairness and transparency, and it constitutes an unlawful penalty charge. The court should strike out this portion of the claim as unenforceable.

 

Offensive and Baseless Allegation Regarding My Ability to Understand CPR and Legal Issues

 

29. In paragraph 25 of the claimant's Witness Statement, the claimant makes a wholly inappropriate and offensive assertion about my ability to understand the complexities of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). The witness claims, without any basis, that I have relied on a "generic defence" found on the internet and implies that I do not understand the references I have made to the law and CPR requirements.

 

30.  This is a baseless and entirely unfounded personal attack. The claimant's witness has no knowledge whatsoever of my level of education, professional background, or capacity to understand legal matters. It is deeply unprofessional and, quite frankly, embarrassing that by profession a litigation executive working for the claimant would resort to such unfounded insults in an official court document. As someone who does not work professionally in law, I am not expected to have the same legal expertise as the claimant’s own legal team and solicitors. However, I have made every effort to research and present a reasonable defence. The claimant’s own legal team and solicitors, being professionals, should be held to a higher standard of compliance with legal procedures, especially with respect to the Civil Procedure Rules.

 

 

 

31. I respectfully remind the court that I am a litigant in person. I have every right to research legal matters and use any available resources to present my defence, just as the claimant’s legal team and solicitors have evidently relied on templates for both their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement. My defence is fully supported by relevant case law and legal principles, regardless of the method by which I prepared it.

 

32. Moreover, this unwarranted and disparaging comment about my ability as a litigant in person amounts to unreasonable behaviour on the part of the claimant. Such conduct is clearly designed to intimidate and belittle me, rather than address the actual legal issues in the case. I believe this behaviour violates the spirit of fair litigation and may amount to a breach of the Overriding Objective under CPR 1.1, which requires the parties to act justly and fairly.

 

33. I respectfully request that the court take note of this unprofessional conduct when making any assessment of costs. The claimant’s solicitors' reliance on personal attacks, rather than focusing on the substance of the legal matters, reflects poorly on their conduct and should be considered when determining whether the claimant has behaved unreasonably in the proceedings.

 

Claimant’s Assertion Regarding My Defence

34. My defence primarily relies on the fact that the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant were woefully deficient and did not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4, as they failed to provide sufficient detail about the basis of the claim. As a result, I was unable to understand the case against me or adequately prepare a response to any specific allegations.

 

35. The only substantive element of my defence, aside from pointing out the deficiencies in the claimant's PoC and their failure to comply with CPR 16.4, was to state: This is far from a detailed or "substantive" defence, and it reflects my inability to provide a fuller response due to the claimant's failure to communicate the alleged contravention to me prior to initiating this claim. I have never received any prior communication about this matter, either in the form of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or reminder letters, as stated in my defence. The claimant’s failure to serve any prior notice means I could not reasonably provide a detailed account or explanation of the circumstances of the alleged incident.

 

Burnt_Roti116

36. It is important to highlight that my defence is not "substantive" in the sense that the claimant implies but is rather a reflection of the claimant's procedural failures and their failure to provide me with any prior information about the alleged breach. This has placed me at a significant disadvantage, and the suggestion that I have not suffered any prejudice as a result is clearly without merit.

 

37. The claimant cannot now seek to argue that their inadequate PoC is excusable simply because I have pointed out their legal and procedural failings. Their lack of compliance with CPR 16.4 has severely hindered my ability to respond to this claim in any meaningful way beyond disputing the receipt of prior communication and highlighting their procedural errors.

 

38. I respectfully request that the court takes this into account when considering the claimant's conduct and the impact it has had on my ability to defend this claim.

 

Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4

 

39. In paragraph 18 of the claimant’s Witness Statement, the claimant attempts to excuse their failure to fully comply with CPR 16.4 by asserting that the information provided in their Particulars of Claim (PoC) was sufficient to make me aware of the nature of the claim. This is a feeble and unconvincing attempt to justify their non-compliance, and I have already provided evidence of recent persuasive cases where similar failures led to claims being struck out.

 

 

40. In CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], the court found that vague and inadequate PoCs that failed to provide essential details were grounds for striking out the claim. The claimant’s PoC in this case suffers from the same deficiencies — lacking crucial information such as the specifics of the alleged contravention, the terms supposedly breached, or any supporting evidence.

 

41. I respectfully submit that the claimant’s continued reliance on these deficient PoCs should result in the court giving no weight to their justification, and I once again refer the court to the persuasive appeal cases I have cited, CPMS v Akande [2024]and CEL v Chan [2023], which I have included as evidence.

 

Conclusion

Claimant's Failure to Satisfy the Burden of Proof

42. The claimant, in their Witness Statement, has failed to satisfy the fundamental burden of proof in this matter. Despite making various assertions about the alleged contraventions and my supposed liability, the claimant has not provided adequate evidence to support their claim.

 

43. Lack of Evidence of Service: The claimant has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), reminder notices, or any pre-action correspondence were properly served, as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Simply producing copies of these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or delivery, and their failure to provide such proof severely undermines their claim.

 

44. Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4: As detailed earlier, the claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) are woefully deficient and do not comply with the requirements of CPR 16.4. The PoC fails to provide sufficient detail about the alleged contravention, preventing me from fully understanding the case against me. Recent persuasive cases, such as CPMS v Akande [2024] and CEL v Chan [2023], demonstrate that such failures warrant the striking out of the claim.

 

45. Inadequate and Speculative Witness Testimony: The claimant’s Witness Statement was provided by an employee who has no personal knowledge of the events surrounding the claim. Much of the testimony provided is hearsay and fails to comply with CPR Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, which requires the witness to clearly indicate which statements are based on their own knowledge and which are based on information provided by others. This undermines the credibility of their evidence.

 

46. Despite these significant procedural and evidentiary failings, the claimant has unreasonably asserted that my defence is “a generic defence” I strongly reject this assertion. My defence has highlighted the claimant's failures to provide sufficient evidence and comply with legal procedures, as well as their lack of contractual authority to operate at the location. Furthermore, as a litigant in person, I have made every effort to research and present a defence that addresses the key issues in this case, despite the claimant’s refusal to provide me with clear and adequate information from the outset.

 

47. I respectfully request that the court dismisses the claimant’s claim in its entirety due to the claimant’s failure to meet the burden of proof and their failure to comply with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court should also consider the claimant’s unreasonable conduct throughout these proceedings when making any assessment of costs.

 

48. With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale

 

49. In the matter of costs, I ask:

(a)   standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, including:

Claim for loss of earnings

Petrol

Parking

Time taken to learn about the law

Compensation for travelling to court so soon after knee surgery

and for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5

1505grandad

Any PoFA re driver is not relevant for your WS because your Defence has stated you were the driver.

You have only stated the Chan case at the beginning of the WS but not the Akande as stated at the end.

"25.  As per the claimant’s schedule of losses section 2ii, the claimant has added £70 per Parking Charge Notice (PCN),"  -  and other paras

Was the addon not £60

Presumably the correct SoT will be added at the end.