UK CPM GLADSTONES court claim SUCCESS

Nosy

Omg, I thought I had submitted the ws but I cant see it anywhere in my sent items. I have been very busy with a house move and missed this.  My hearing is Wednesday 23rd. Not sure of the deadline andI have not received anything else from them

Gr1pr

Earlier you mentioned 27th July, ( a sunday   ) now you say Wed 23rd July, make your mind up, but probably the 23rd,  so not a sunday 

Get it submitted to the court and to the lawyers today,  by email,  keep it under 50 pages

Yes I know it's late,  but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about 

If asked in court,  apologise to the judge and ask that it's considered to expedite matters

The deadline is usually 2 weeks before,  so if theirs hasn't arrived,  ring the court,  see if they paid the £27 fee,  ask if its still going ahead or has been vacated 

Nosy

Yes the hearing is on 23rd July. The deadline for the claimant to pay was 25th June. I am assuming they have paid as I have received their WS on 19th June.  I see now on the other side that deadline is 14 days before hearing date for all evidence, I can't believe I have missed this. Yes i will get to work and send the WS by Monday morning. 

Nosy

Witness Statement of Mr.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

Claim Number: 

Between:

UK Car Park Management Ltd (Claimant)

And

Mr. X̌xxxxxx (Defendant)

Witness Statement of xxxxx

1. I, xxxxxx, of xxxxxx, am the Defendant in this matter. I make this witness statement in support of my defence against the claim brought by UK Car Park Management Ltd for a parking charge issued in November 2023.

2. I confirm that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged incident.

3. I entered the car park in question because I was visiting a nearby children’s soft play centre. My total time on-site was no more than 12 minutes.

4. At no point did I park to accept the terms of the car park. I entered the site, found a place to stop, and left the engine running while I exited the vehicle to read the posted signs.

5. It was dark, and the signage was poorly lit, small, and difficult to interpret. The information was unclear and not prominently displayed in a way that met the standards required for forming a legally binding contract.

6. I was genuinely unsure of how to comply with the parking terms. As a result, I entered the children’s soft play centre to ask for guidance, as I initially assumed the staff might be responsible for or aware of how to pay.

7. I made an attempt to download the app listed on the signs, but due to the poor visibility, lack of signal, and unclear instructions, and local reception, I was unable to complete the process.

8. After several minutes trying to read and understand the signage and payment process, I decided not to park. I returned to my vehicle and exited the car park without using any facilities or occupying a space for any prolonged period.

9. At all times, I acted in good faith, trying to understand the terms and comply. I ultimately chose to leave the premises precisely because I was unable to confidently determine how to comply.

10. The only photographic evidence provided by the claimant consists of low-resolution, dark images of my vehicle which only show the number plate. These images do not establish any breach of contract or parking terms. They also fail to show the location of the vehicle, surrounding context, or the position of signage.

11. The claimant has also provided generic daytime images of signage, which are not from the night in question. These do not represent the actual visibility, lighting conditions, or location-specific clarity of the signs at the time of the incident.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. The Beavis case is distinguishable because in that situation, the signage was large, bold, and clearly positioned. That was not the case here, so the same principles do not apply.

17. 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.

18. Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant appear to be in breach of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, and Practice Directions 16PD3 and 16PD7. They failed to clearly state all the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. This has made it difficult to respond effectively to the claim.

19. I respectfully request the Court to dismiss the claim on the grounds that:

- No valid contract was formed.

- The signage was not sufficiently prominent or clear to meet legal requirements.

- The claimant’s evidence is inadequate and does not reflect the actual conditions on-site.

- No loss or legitimate interest justifies the charge being pursued.

- The Particulars of Claim are deficient and fail to meet the CPR requirements.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Late Filing Note

I acknowledge that this witness statement has been submitted after the deadline set by the court directions. The reason for this delay is that I have recently moved house with a young family and, amidst the stress and disruption of the move, I misplaced key documents and unfortunately forgot about the deadline. I respectfully request the court’s discretion to accept this statement in the interests of justice. The contents are central to my defence and will not cause any prejudice to the claimant.

Signed: ___________________________

Date: ___________________________

Any feedback would be appreciated 

Coupon-mad

No. It is not ready.

Absolutely NOT THIS:

Late Filing Note

I acknowledge that this witness statement has been submitted after the deadline set by the court directions. The reason for this delay is that I have recently moved house with a young family and, amidst the stress and disruption of the move, I misplaced key documents and unfortunately forgot about the deadline. I respectfully request the court’s discretion to accept this statement in the interests of justice. The contents are central to my defence and will not cause any prejudice to the claimant. 

And this SoT is 5 years out of date:

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

Search the forum for greengrocer's apostrophe and change to newest.

Look in the first results for a post by me yesterday. Then look at that person's WS which is much stronger. Plagiarise it!

Nosy

 Should i mentioned anything about this WS being late?? 

@Coupon-mad thanks i found the WS you mentioned, it was very helpful. 

In the County Court at xxxxxxx

 

 

Claim Number: xxxxxxxx

 

 

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITD (Claimant)

V

xxxxxxxx (Defendant)

                                                                                                                                                               

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

FOR HEARING ON 23/07/2025

 

                                                                                                                       

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

 

1.      I am xxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx, 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.      I respectfully bring to the courts attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Craig Hood of Gladstone’s Solicitors, is hearsay from a third party office junior. It fails to comply with the Judge’s order which requires statements from the parties, and does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Paragraph 23 of the of claimant’s Witness Statement states that there was no response received but the defendant went through the full appeal process and had responded to the parking operators communications. This brings up the question do Gladstones really have direct knowledge of the facts. (See Exhibit 1) the final response to the appeal made by the defendant.

4.      Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. Gladstones is not a ‘party’. Craig Hood is not a witness, will not attend the hearing, and does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

5.      I also 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.

6.      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)

7.      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 3)

8.      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 and sequence of events

9.      I confirm that I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged incident.

10.   I entered the car park in question because I was visiting a nearby children’s soft play centre. My total time on-site was no more than 12 minutes. At no point did I park to accept the terms of the car park. I entered the site through a very narrow entrance, found a place to stop, and left the engine running while I exited the vehicle to read the posted signs. The narrow entrance meant that a vehicle could only make a U turn once they are in the ANPR operated car park. The site map provided by the claimant shows this.

11. It was dark, and the signage was poorly lit, small, and difficult to interpret. The information was unclear and not prominently displayed in a way that met the standards required for forming a legally binding contract.

1. I was genuinely unsure of how to comply with the parking terms. As a result, I entered the children’s soft play centre to ask for guidance, as I initially assumed the staff might be responsible for or aware of how to pay.
2. I made an attempt to download the app listed on the signs, but due to the poor visibility, lack of signal, and unclear instructions, and local reception, I was unable to complete the process. After several minutes trying to read and understand the signage and payment process, I decided not to park. I returned to my vehicle and exited the car park without using any facilities or occupying a space for any prolonged period.
3. At all times, I acted in good faith, trying to understand the terms and comply. I ultimately chose to leave the premises precisely because I was unable to confidently determine how to comply.
4. The only photographic evidence provided by the claimant consists of low-resolution, dark images of my vehicle which only show the number plate. These images do not establish any breach of contract or parking terms. They also fail to show the location of the vehicle, surrounding context, or the position of signage. The claimant has also provided generic daytime images of signage, which are not from the night in question. These do not represent the actual visibility, lighting conditions, or location-specific clarity of the signs at the time of the incident.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The Beavis case is distinguishable because in that situation, the signage was large, bold, and clearly positioned. That was not the case here, so the same principles do not apply.
10. 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.
11. Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant appear to be in breach of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, and Practice Directions 16PD3 and 16PD7. They failed to clearly state all the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. This has made it difficult to respond effectively to the claim.
12. I respectfully request the Court to dismiss the claim on the grounds that:

- No valid contract was formed.

- The signage was not sufficiently prominent or clear to meet legal requirements.

- The claimant’s evidence is inadequate and does not reflect the actual conditions on-site.

- No loss or legitimate interest justifies the charge being pursued.

- The Particulars of Claim are deficient and fail to meet the CPR requirements.

Exaggerated claim

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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).
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. 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'.
   
   
5. 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'.
   
   
6. 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.
   
   
7. 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))'.

 

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:  21/07/25

Exhibit 1 – Final response to appeal

Exhibit 2 - CE VS Chan  transcript

Exhibit 3- CPMS Vs Akande transcript

Exhibit 4- Defendants costs 

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM

 

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS    

I respectfully request that the Court consider awarding costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(2). Specifically:

- £95.00 for loss of earnings in order to attend the hearing on 23 July 2025;
- £6.93 for return travel (15.4 miles round trip at HMRC-approved mileage rate of £0.45 per mile);
- [Insert court fees paid, if any, e.g. “£275 for N244 application” or delete if not applicable].

I understand that costs on the small claims track are limited, but I also respectfully invite the Court to consider whether the Claimant’s conduct amounts to unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

In particular, I experienced repeated and pressurising contact from the Claimant, which I found to be stressful and unnecessary. While I make no formal allegation of harassment, I believe some of their conduct may fall below the standard expected of a reasonable litigant.

I leave this to the Court’s discretion but ask that it be taken into account when assessing whether any additional costs are appropriate.

 

Costs Schedule

Cost Item	Amount	Notes
Loss of earnings (hearing attendance)	£95.00	Capped under CPR 27.14(2)(c) for one day
Travel (15.4 miles @ £0.45/mile)	£6.93	Based on return mileage to and from court
Discretionary costs (unreasonable conduct)	[Court’s discretion]	Claimed under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to Claimant’s behaviour
Total (excluding discretionary costs)	£101.93

 

Coupon-mad

Should i mentioned anything about this WS being late?

No.

And remove the repetition 'Exaggerated Claim.'

Nosy

Do you know which email i should send the WS to?

I saw the table with the list of email addresses but not one for a WS. 

Nosy

I couldn't find an email so hopefully they have it as i sent it to:

smallclaims@birmingham.countycourt.gsi.gov.uk
ccbc@justice.gov.uk
enquiries.birmingham.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
hearings.birmingham.countycourt@justice.gov.uk 

i also sent it to the claimant and Gladstones.

Nosy

Spoke to the court earlier and they confirmed enquiries.birmingham.countycourt@justice.gov.uk