JD Gym/Jardines Parking - Milton Keynes

kryten3000

Have you included anything about the "material change to terms and conditions" signage requirements?  I think this applies here.

It's section 3.4 of the Single Code of Practice, but you may need to refer to the code that was "live" on the date of parking:

"Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises."

Burnt_Roti116

1505grandad said:

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.

thanks, I have added Akande in the beginning.

Re:PoFA - do I need to remove ALL PoFA mentions? or was there a particular bullet you were referring to?

According to the WS issued by claimant, it was £70

Burnt_Roti116

kryten3000 said:

Have you included anything about the "material change to terms and conditions" signage requirements?  I think this applies here.

It's section 3.4 of the Single Code of Practice, but you may need to refer to the code that was "live" on the date of parking:

"Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises."

I havent!, I will add this in

Burnt_Roti116

1505grandad said:

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.

I've had another read of my WS, yes even though I am the driver, doesn't this still apply as "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..."? or is this only apply for when the registered keeper was not the driver? 

Coupon-mad

Only applies where the driver isn't admitted or known. That's a really old WS you copied - two years old because you copied this which isn't true any more:

"With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs'..."

Bin the template stuff (DLUHC) if that was already in your defence and bin the bits about NTKs/POFA.

Should be a nice story with exhibit numbers in order. I saw 'exhibit 5' referred to first. Makes no sense. Exhibit numbers follow the order mentioned in the WS.

A better (more concise) example is by @Harry77

Burnt_Roti116

Coupon-mad said:

Only applies where the driver isn't admitted or known. That's a really old WS you copied - two years old because you copied this which isn't true any more:

"With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs'..."

Bin the template stuff (DLUHC) if that was already in your defence and bin the bits about NTKs/POFA.

Should be a nice story with exhibit numbers in order. I saw 'exhibit 5' referred to first. Makes no sense. Exhibit numbers follow the order mentioned in the WS.

A better (more concise) example is by @Harry77

thanks will have another look at it. I remember there was a section in his WS about heresay evidence and claimaint's witness being a legal assistant employed by solicitors. I dont think that applies here as Gladstones have sent me a copy of the WS who seems to be from a litigator employed by euro car parking services limited...

Burnt_Roti116

also removing Harry's bits of "substantiative" from the below section as it doesnt apply in my case

Claimant’s Assertion Regarding My Defence

Burnt_Roti116

Updated WS:

Facts and Sequence of events.

1.      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 01). So the parking spaces were either for JD Gym members of Pure Gym members (marked by their respective logos in each parking spot).

2.      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 02).

3.      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 02). 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.

4.      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.

5.      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.

6.      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.

7.      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 03). 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 04). For reference Exhibit 03 and 04 were taken on 24th March 2025, more than a year after the alleged offence, which shows it still hasn’t been rectified by Jardines.

8.      No Windscreen PCN: It is denied that a windscreen notice was ever attached to notify me of this alleged contravention on 16th February 2024. This contravenes The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) (See Exhibit 05)

9.      The PCN was issued on 7th March 2024, a full 20 days after the alleged contravention date of 16th February 2024. This breaches the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges, 6.2 (See Exhibit 06).

1. The facts in this WS come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. It is only after receiving the WS I now fully know what the breach allegation is for.
2. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) (See Exhibit 07) and CPMS v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) (See Exhibit 08) would indicate the POC fails to comply with with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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.
3. 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 09).

13. 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

Unenforceable Additional Costs

14.  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.

 

15.  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

 

16. Furthermore, these additional costs appear to be arbitrary and penal in nature. Under established law principles, such as ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] (See Exhibit 10), 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.

 

17. 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.

 

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.

Burnt_Roti116

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

 

1.      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.

 

2.       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.

 

3.      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.

 

4.      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.

 

5.      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

6.      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. It is only now after receiving their WS I am able to.

 

7.      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.

 

8.      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

 

9.      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.

 

10. 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.

 

11. 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

12. 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.

 

13. 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.

 

14. 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.

 

15. 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.

 

16. 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.

 

17. 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.

 

18. 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

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

Coupon-mad

Burnt_Roti116 said:

Your ending repeats stuff about Chan & Akande that is already higher up. I think you can cut out some if it to make it more concise.

Also remove all this:

"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 09).

13. 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"

You aren't providing 'images below' and don't need to other county court judgments.

Make sure you exhibit both Chan and Akande.

Finally, where you say you were UNABLE TO USE ANY KEYPAD BECAUSE THE OFFICE WAS CLOSED this is massive! Make more of that snd say any contractual term requiring use of an inaccessible keypad was 'void for impossibility'.