PCM Moorside court claim received (Merged)

kryten3000

Get it in asap.

befree16

kryten3000 said:

Get it in asap.

Could you reread my edit above?  Can I send it in and justify with the above?

I will call them up tomorrow and explain.

The hearing is still well over a month away.

Coupon-mad

befree16 said:

kryten3000 said:

Get it in asap.

Could you reread my edit above?  Can I send it in and justify with the above?

I will call them up tomorrow and explain..

No you won't.

Just GET THE WS IN.

Le_Kirk

As advised by two regulars now, just get it in - no apologies for being late, in fact no reference to date at all.

befree16

Le_Kirk said:

As advised by two regulars now, just get it in - no apologies for being late, in fact no reference to date at all.

I have been prepping it.  Can I send via email to both parties?  I had the WS from Moorside by post.

Shall I also send all evidence I will be using?

Gr1pr

Email it to both parties ASAP,  To the court and to the lawyers,  Moorside 

Make sure that it is 50 pages or less,  yes you should include your Exhibits as well as your WS, but either way get it done, no need to phone,  just do it  !

Coupon-mad

befree16 said:

Le_Kirk said:

As advised by two regulars now, just get it in - no apologies for being late, in fact no reference to date at all.

I have been prepping it.  Can I send via email to both parties?  I had the WS from Moorside by post.

Shall I also send all evidence I will be using?

Yes. Done it now? Better late than never.

befree16

Coupon-mad said:

befree16 said:

Le_Kirk said:

As advised by two regulars now, just get it in - no apologies for being late, in fact no reference to date at all.

I have been prepping it.  Can I send via email to both parties?  I had the WS from Moorside by post.

Shall I also send all evidence I will be using?

Yes. Done it now? Better late than never.

Despite this being the least of my worries right now, and probably leaving this too late, I found a recent WS circumstantially close to my alleged incident.  Still have multiple weeks before the hearing, but not getting my hopes up due to the brazen lateness.  Much of it was copy and paste, but added in my side and a few arguments which I would be grateful if you could validate or tell me to throw out.

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1.  I am XXXXX, 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 XXXXX within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page XX and reference numbers where appropriate.

Preliminary matter: The Claim should be struck out

3.     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.

4.      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)

5.      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)

6.      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

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

8.      I drove into XXXXXXXXX under the assumption I would be able to park in a bay and wait for my father who was travelling on the train.

9.     Due to the high volume of cars in XXXXXXXX, I realised I would be unable to park in a bay. 
   

10.    I proceeded to perform a 3-point turn maneuver, and on the final part of this maneuver my father opened the passenger side door.  

11.   For his safety and anyone else, I paused the maneuver for a matter of seconds to let him enter the vehicle and close the passenger side door.

12.   I then drove out of XXXXXXXXX.

13. The series of events described above occured in a matter of seconds.

14. Furthermore, as insinuated by the Claimant's client, XXXXXXXXX, "The Vehicle was parked in a manner that contravenes the terms and conditions for the use of public land on which it was photographed" does not carry legal basis.  The Defendant does not recall agreeing to, or being made aware of any contractual binding to any terms and conditions through the Claimant's client. 
 

15. The Defendant denies being parked on private land.  During a 3-point turn maneuver, the door was unexpectedly opened, and a person entered the passenger side door.  Regardless of someone entering or exiting the vehicle, during a 3-point turn maneuver there are periods where a car must become stationary.

16.  The restrictions on this land were not immediately visible through signage.  It could be argued due to how busy XXXXXXXX was on the day, and signage relatively low to the ground, the Claimant cannot reasonably infer visibility and forewarning under any circumstance.  This is due to pedestrians and vehicles potentially blocking signage.  Furthermore, any unsuspecting driver would have no choice but to continue in to XXXXXXXXX to be able to turn around and exit the area safely.  (see Exhibit 3). 

17.  Also due to vehicles obscuring parking bays further from the entrance to XXXXXXXXX, it is impossible to determine availability without driving in. (Also see Exhibit 3).

18. 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.

19.  The Claimant fails to show that the terms were clearly displayed and accessible, particularly in low level lighting on the day of the alleged incient. As per the guidance in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, adequate notice of terms is essential to enforceability.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.

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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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'.

27. 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'.

28.  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: 

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do except replace the horrific American spelling 'maneuver' with the proper English spelling.

Ouch! If it made me shudder it'll do the same to a judge.

  

1505grandad

"14. Furthermore, as insinuated by the Claimant's client, XXXXXXXXX, ..............."

Not sure who you are stating on the heading as "The Claimant"  -  please clarify