Claim Form Received from UK Car Management Limited

mebobby

This is my final WS I have taken the rest out:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out 

The Particulars of Claim lack clarity and fail to set out the alleged breach with sufficient precision. Courts have consistently held that vague, generic pleadings do not meet the standards required under CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.  I respectfully draw the Court’s attention to authoritative judgments supporting the striking out of claims where cut and paste pleadings have been employed, resulting in vague, irrelevant, or incoherent allegations that fail to meet the required standards under CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16.(Exhibit 1- Particulars of Claim).

Bulk litigators handling private parking cases must adhere to proper standards and the Practice Direction. Persisting in using generic, auto-filled, and unspecific wording should carry no expectation of tolerance from the Court. Courts are increasingly striking out such claims, guided by clear and authoritative precedent.In Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44), HHJ Murch on 15 August 2023 held that the particulars “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,” in breach of CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. The same fundamental defect applies here, and in light of Chan, the Court should strike out this claim pursuant to CPR 3.4 (Exhibit 2 - Judgment Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan).

Similarly, in Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (Case No. IK0DP5J30), HHJ Evans emphasised on 10 May 2024 that particulars of claim must clearly and specifically state the case the defendant must meet and cannot rely on generic template wording. This judgment highlights the critical requirement for detailed pleadings so defendants can properly respond (Exhibit 3 Judgement Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande ).

Also 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. (Exhibit 4- Parallel Parking v Anon Judgement)

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. 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. (Exhibit 5- Judgement by Judge McMurtie and District Judge Ranson)

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 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.

Claimant’s Witness Statement

As a preliminary matter, I also wish to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Deanne Never's of Gladstones Solicitors, 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. 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. As Deanne Never’s does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, I respectfully request 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.

Furthermore, the Claimant’s embarrassing allegation that the Defendant has no ability to understand the complexities of his defence. This is insulting, unacceptable, amounts to abuse and should be sanctioned by the court.

mebobby

No PCN or NTK issued: At no point, either on the alleged date of the incident or at any time thereafter, did I receive a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) or a Notice to Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant. This matter was first brought to my attention only upon receipt of the Claim Form issued on 03 March 2025, nearly a year after the alleged offence. The significant delay in notifying me, and the lack of prior correspondence, has severely limited my ability to address or resolve this matter in a timely manner. Had I been properly notified in accordance with the relevant legal requirements, I would have had the opportunity to respond, appeal, or challenge the charge before the matter escalated to court proceedings.

This legal issue has already been addressed in two separate appeals. The relevant transcripts are provided below as evidence:

In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA. Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all). HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed and Excel's claim was dismissed (Exhibit 6- Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith).

In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation. HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed (Exhibit 7-Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward).

Attempt to settle at mediation: There has been attempt at mediation and offer to settle the claim out of court but the Claimant has refused and demands a sum 100% more than the debt claimed which in itself has been highly inflated.

Other persons permitted to drive my vehicle: Multiple individuals were authorised by me to use the vehicle at the times of the alleged contraventions via their own comprehensive insurance policies, which allowed them to use another private vehicle for which they were covered on a third party only basis. 

I have no prior knowledge of, nor have I previously visited the car park in question: I only became aware of this matter nearly a year later, when I received the Claim Form. I do not recognise the site and have no recollection of the alleged incident. I received no prior communication or notice of any charge until that point from the Claimant.

I have attended the car park for the purpose of gathering information in support of my defence: In order to properly defend this claim, I felt compelled to personally visit the alleged site to assess the conditions. Upon doing so, I can confirm that there is no clear, visible signage upon entering (Exhibit 8) and no signage upon exiting, (Exhibit 9). In fact, the only sign positioned at the entrance is facing the opposite direction, meaning that any driver entering the car park would not be able to read or understand the terms outlined on the sign. 

This renders the signage effectively unusable and contrary to the expectations set by case law regarding the necessity of clear and visible terms. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E (Manchester County Court, 2017) (Exhibit 6). The Court held that signs that are not clearly visible, poorly placed, or facing the wrong way fail to give reasonable notice of the terms and such inadequate signage means no contract was formed because the driver had no real chance to see or understand the terms. Without clear notice of the terms, the essential elements of a contract were not satisfied. Therefore, the defendant cannot be held liable for payment.

mebobby

Should I take this out from the conclusion too:


Exhibit --- provided by the Claimant shows a vehicle clearly different from the one alleged to be involved, raising serious concerns about the accuracy and relevance of the evidence submitted.

The Exhibit about my findings of the company the claimant claims to have a contract with do I not submit that? How will the judge know I am telling the truth?

Thank you 

Gr1pr

Your witness statement ends with a signed statement of truth by you, plus if you lied in court its perjury,  so the judge will assume everything is true unless proven otherwise  ( your defence was also a statement of truth too )

You definitely should not commit perjury,  that would be much worse for you 

Coupon-mad

You still have a strange greengrocer's apostrophe in Gladstones' employee's name.

Reviewing the exhibits you had, I think you do need to keep exhibits 10 and 12 and should keep the points about no landowner authority.

Nobody uses VCS v HMRC.

mebobby

@Gr1pr sorry I think my question has been interpreted I was asking if I am not to include my findings as Exhibits as per @Coupon-mad message above and need to wait until the hearing to voice my findings. How can I prove to the judge that my findings are correct? 

It is the claimant who has lied. 

Gr1pr

I try to answer based on what I read and knowledge and experience etc, so advised you not to lie

Personally,  I would definitely not be stating that anyone else lied,  it's a strong allegation and you would need to prove it, a high burden on you and nasty consequences if you cannot prove it.  Don't change the nature of current case 

You can point out errors and failures on their part,  especially ones you can prove, so words like mendacious,  inaccurate,  false , but not libel,  perjury, not defamatory , no defamation etc, let a judge decide if they are fundamentally dishonest   ( you are fighting a small claim here, not Rooney vs Crouch  )

You are not trying to prove anything to the judge, the claimant is  !

You are trying to show that you have no liability in law for the alleged breach of the parking contract on that private property 

But an accusation of lying is a different ball game IMHO,  don't start a fire that rapidly escalates,  out of something and nothing , it could cost you dear if unproven 

You are asking us how you can prove it,  if you dont know,  don't have the evidence or proof, dont even open that box of worms

Stick to fighting your corner 

mebobby

Thank you @Gr1prI completely agree with your point, but I’m a bit confused. I was under the impression from earlier replies in my thread,  that identifying weaknesses in the claimant’s witness statement was something I was supposed to do, alongside provided Exhibits especially as I had been told my WS was good. Now I’m being advised to remove those points, which has left me confused.

My thinking was that, by highlighting the flaws in the claimant’s case, they might choose to withdraw. However, I’m concerned that if I don’t mention or submit certain exhibits now, the judge may later say I can’t rely on them because they weren’t previously referenced. I hope that makes sense.

I do however, also understand @Coupon-mad's point that if I highlight the flaws in the claimant’s witness statement, they may respond by submitting a supplementary statement.

I need to submit the statement by Tuesday and I am left unsure...

Gr1pr

That's the problem,  the dilemma,  it's all a part of jousting in litigation 

Sometimes you score an own goal by pointing out the errors in their WS, especially if they realise and submit a supplementary 

Your Witness Statement is mainly about your defence, expanding on your defence,  putting enough text and exhibits in that enable you to stand your ground,  and on the day point out their weaknesses and problems etc, but not accuse them of lying in their paperwork or in court  ( accusations of lying, perjury,  libel , dishonesty etc are taken extremely seriously  )

Your case is about rubbish POC,  errors in their case , problems in their Exhibits etc , but mainly about you, about the fact that you are arguing that you are not liable,  not the driver, this is YOUR Witness Statement,  so dont make it easy for them by being too clever in pointing out their errors and weaknesses,  not until it's your turn to speak in court 

Don't lose sight of the fact that they have to prove that YOU are liable for the actions of the unknown driver,  for an unpleaded alleged breach, or they lose the case, nothing else 

This case is not about proving that anyone is deliberately lying to the court,  or about libel,  or about perjury or fundamental dishonesty either

Because coupon mad has extensive knowledge and experience in these matters,  it would be very foolish not to do what she advised earlier  ( I have no comment to make about her sound advice   ) you can stand up in court and point out their weaknesses and errors etc

Coupon-mad

@mebobby

Did you miss my last reply? I only intended you to remove the stuff about their lack of signage images.

And don't use VCS v HMRC which helps nobody and is ancient.