Concluded-PCN - Euro Parking - Gladstones - Defence HELP! Witness statement

EightFiveTwoDude

Hi everyone, 

I have been given a PCN last year (Jan 2024 ) for a visit to a play area which offers free parking to customers. 

The PCN was issued in 2024 apparently but because we moved to a different city and the PCN went to my old address, then in July/August 2024 i received a call to say i owe Euro parking money and will be taken to court - i called the play area management and asked them to cancel the fine because (a) we have a session booked for the kids, (b) I didn't park in the parking but only stopped to pick my kids after their session - i didnt stop/park in any bays but only stopped in the pick and drop area but due to how busy it was and how narrow the parking is it took us around 15 minutes to finally get out of the parking. The play area management said they will speak to Euro parking and then get this PCN cancelled, afterwards, they emailed me to say because the ticket was issued 6 to 8 months prior to our conversation and because the case is with Euro parking lawyers hence they cant help and suggest i pay it BUT because they told me on the phone that they will get it cancelled, i assumed this is over.

Then i got a letter on 15th Jan 2025 from HM courts & Tribunal service to say they are contacting me because someone claims i owe them money and i should response to the claim if not claimant could request a CCJ - This is when i came to this form and did the MCOL on the last day of 14 days deadline and now i am drafting a defence which i would be grateful if the esteemed members could review. everything from para 4 onwards are same as the template. 


The defence as per the template on this form 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1.     The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2.     The facts in this defence 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 appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3.     The Defendant denies liability for the claim in its entirety. The vehicle was present at the location on the date in question as the Defendant had a session booked at Air Nation, an inflatable play area for children, which is situated within the same premises where the Claimant alleges a parking contravention occurred.

The vehicle did not park but merely entered the premises to pick up young children, who were aged four years and eight months at the time. Due to a lack of available parking spaces, the vehicle briefly stopped outside the entrance of Air Nation for collection purposes. Air Nation provides free parking for customers, and had the Defendant intended to park, this facility would have been utilised. The vehicle’s entry was solely for the purpose of collecting family members, not for parking.

The parking area was congested, causing delays in both entry and exit. The movement of vehicles was hindered by the narrow layout and high volume of traffic, contributing to the time spent within the premises. The Defendant only received correspondence from the Claimant nine months after the alleged incident and, upon learning of the claim, contacted Air Nation the same day. Air Nation confirmed that had they been informed earlier, they would have requested the charge to be cancelled as they offer free parking to their customers, but due to the long delay, they were unable to assist. This is unfair to the Defendant, who was only made aware of the claim after nine months, at which point it was too late to seek support from Air Nation.

Gr1pr

So, for clarity,  it Euro Parking Services, via Gladstones Solicitors 

Court claim issue date,  15 January 2025

The actual contravention is not specified 

EightFiveTwoDude

Gr1pr said:

So, for clarity,  it Euro Parking Services, via Gladstones Solicitors 

Court claim issue date,  15 January 2025

The actual contravention is not specified 

Hi Gr1pr 

Yes - it Euro Parking Services, via Gladstones Solicitors 
Yes - Court claim issue date,  15 January 2025 
It says on the PCN pictures that contravention = Failure to pay for the duration of the stay. contravention time = 15:09 minutes  - > would this be what you are referring to ? 

Thanks 

Gr1pr

Its not specified in the POC on the lower left of the claim form 

My reply concentrated only on clarifying the claim,  not anything else 

Hint, that sentence is not in the POC

Coupon-mad

Claim form dated 15th January and as per usual, Gladstones haven't even bothered to specify the term or the alleged breach.

You should not be responding to a breach allegation that isn't specified in their POC.

Search the forum for:

Gladstones Chan Akande

Your facts paragraph should be shorter and it'll be paragraph 6. Look at other recent defences with Chan & Akande in the early paragraphs.

EightFiveTwoDude

Timeline: 

Incident date : 20/01/2024
PCN issued : 29/02/2024 
reminder sent to old house : feb 2024 - august 2024
First time receiving news about this : mid August 2024 
Spoke to Play area management who assured this will be cancelled but sent email 3 hrs later which i didnt see because i assumed they have taken care of the cancellation : mid August 2024  
Received CCJ letter : 15 Jan 2025 

EightFiveTwoDude

Coupon-mad said:

You should not be responding to a breach allegation that isn't specified in their POC.

Search the forum for:

Gladstones Chan Akande

Your facts paragraph should be shorter and it'll be paragraph 6. Look at other recent defences with Chan & Akande in the early paragraphs.

Hi Coupon-Mad - thank you very much for your reply- i will look at Gladstones Chan Akande threads 

Gr1pr

Its a court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL,  not a CCJ letter 

KeithP

EightFiveTwoDude said:

...did the MCOL on the last day of 14 days deadline

What does that actually mean?
For the moment I am going to assume that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') sometime in January. Is that right?
Did you file an AOS via the MCOL website? Again I'll assume yes for the moment.

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

As others have said, those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.
Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.
This will be an easy win.

Gr1pr

Please remove the personal details like the case reference etc

Please only post the paragraphs you have changed from the template defence,  typically paragraphs 2 to 5 in your case,  not the rest of the template 

EightFiveTwoDude

@Coupon-mad / @Gr1pr / @KeithP

Could i request the pros for a review of the update defence for a POC that does not specify a breach 

Template used from Plonker25 case  > Claim Form Gladstone's solicitors Filing defence

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: xxxxxxx
Between
Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!
(Claimant)

·       and -
Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)
(Defendant)

---

DEFENCE

1.    The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2.    The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge 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.

3.    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(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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

#######Chan case images X 4  ######

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4.    The facts in this defence 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 appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

5.    The Defendant denies liability for the claim in its entirety.  Given the prohibitive nature of most PCM signage seen in their other Gladstones !roboclaim' cases and the images seen on Google Streetview, the Defendant takes the point that the wording of the Claimant's signs typically forbids parking to make it worse, there were signs outside AirNation play area to say FREE Parking which caused confusion. As such, there is no offer to park and therefore no contract.  Accordingly, the Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked in breach of any term (whatever that term might have been) and denies that a contract with PCM to pay any sum that would have been agreed.


###########Images  below from the play area and parking for esteem members reference to see if PARA 5 is required or not #######

6.    Presence of Vehicle: The Defendant's vehicle was present at the location on the date in question to pick up young children (aged four years and eight months) from Air Nation, an inflatable play area for children, located within the premises where the Claimant alleges a parking contravention occurred.

7.    No Parking Occurred: The vehicle did not park but briefly stopped outside the Air Nation entrance to collect the children. This was due to a lack of available parking spaces and the congested nature of the area.

8.    Free Parking Facility: Air Nation provides free parking for its customers. Had the Defendant intended to park, they would have used this facility. The vehicle’s entry was solely for the purpose of collecting family members, not for parking.

9.    Congestion and Delays: The parking area was congested, with a high volume of traffic and a narrow layout, causing delays in both entry and exit. This contributed to the time spent within the premises.

10. Delay in Correspondence: The Defendant received correspondence from the Claimant nine months after the alleged incident. Upon learning of the claim, the Defendant contacted Air Nation the same day.

11. Air Nation’s Response: Air Nation confirmed that, had they been informed earlier, they would have requested the charge to be cancelled, as they offer free parking to their customers. However, due to the nine-month delay, they were unable to assist.

12. Unfairness to Defendant: The Defendant was only made aware of the claim after nine months, at which point it was too late to seek support from Air Nation. This delay is argued to be unfair to the Defendant.

13. The Particulars of Claim do not sufficiently outline the basis for the alleged charge or provide evidence of a contractual breach. In light of the above, the Defendant requests that the claim be dismissed.

14. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

15. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

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

.................continue as per template