Claim Form Received from UK Car Management Limited

Coupon-mad

Why in earth are you trying to say stuff at mediation when we tell you not to?

Again you need to go back to the first 12 steps.

mebobby

The reason I asked was because a friend of mine mentioned that she had a mediation call and the Mediator asked how she would defend her case in front of the judge and when she put her case forward he said that is a good defence- so I was under the impression that I would have to do the same.

Now that I know that I am not to be influenced by the mediator I have gone back to the first 12 steps and I'm going to say something along the lines of:

Hello

No offer 

No acceptance 

If the mediator asks about how I will defend the case in Court I will simply say I want to let the court deal with all the facts 

Thank you and Goodbye 

Hope this is ok @Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad

As it's Gladstones Solicitors that's basically all you need to say. They won't stop at this point.

mebobby

I have received a WS from Gladstone Solicitors alongside photos of the car park site and a letter stating that the Claimant will not be attending Court and would like the judge to make a decision in their absence. They are yet to pay the court fees next week should I assume that they not pay that either and that the case will be thrown out? Or should I still attend?

Gr1pr

Have you completed your Witness Statement bundle and have you submitted it to the court and to Gladstones as well   ?

When is the deadline date for your WS bundle to be submitted   ( usually its the same deadline as theirs, so dont miss the deadline   )

mebobby

I did not realise that I had to submit a WS. Where would I find this please? I hope I have not missed the deadline. The hearing is listed in August and the Claimant has until the 23rd July to pay the court fees. Please help!!

Gr1pr

Your deadline is mentioned on the same court order that gave the payment deadline plus the hearing date,  check it and work out the deadline date based on the court date 

You must draft your bespoke Witness Statement plus your Exhibits etc and email to the court and lawyers by the deadline  ( keep it under 50 pages   )

mebobby

Thank you @Gr1pr I really appreciate your time. I am unsure what exhibits to attach. As I was not the driver on the date specified so which WS do I use for a template. In the PoC it is stated that parking was in breach of terms, but the exact terms were never specified. 

Gr1pr

Study recent WS examples by other victims on here   (  there are no WS templates   ) plus study the WS advice by coupon mad in the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements , which starts as follows

LETTERS ABOUT HEARINGS - WITNESS STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE TIME!

When you get a hearing date, THAT LETTER gives you on page two, the deadline by which YOU MUST file the evidence ('exhibits') and Witness Statement.

YOU are the witness.

You MUST do a statement and it is not OK to rely only on your defence only.


Then assemble your bundle,  including Chan and Akande if the POC didn't mention the actual breach,  plus add those Exhibits too

mebobby

Would someone be kind enough to have a quick read before I send this off. Please ignore the paragraph numbering and exhibits bit I will sort that out once I get approval.  Many thanks in advance

3.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.

1. 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. 

1. I do not recall receiving any pre-claim correspondence relating to the PCNs in question. I would like to point out to the court that I was residing at my partners residence at various times between 2023 – 2025 due to personal circumstances. 

1. All post received at my partners house was forwarded on to me, however, I do not recall receiving any correspondence in relation to the PCNs claimed for within this claim.

1. Before receiving the Claim Form, I did not recognise the site in question, nor do I recall having been there at any time prior to this matter being brought to my attention. I have no recollection of the alleged incident, and at no point was I made aware of any parking charge or related correspondence until the Claim Form was issued. The lack of prior communication and my unfamiliarity with the location raises doubts about the validity of the Claimant’s assertions regarding this charge. Given the circumstances, I believe I should have been provided with clearer evidence or earlier notification to allow me to address the matter in a timely manner. 

1. The Claimant acknowledges in paragraph 31 that no Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on -------, the date of the alleged contravention. Furthermore, I confirm that I did not receive any PCN from the Claimant on or after ------. As such, the Claimant has failed to issue a notice within the statutory timeframes required under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that a notice was properly issued and served by post in compliance with POFA.

1. 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 the car park. (Please see Exhibit) 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 ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court emphasised that clear and adequate signage is essential to ensure that drivers are fully aware of the parking terms and conditions before entering a parking area. The Claimant’s failure to provide properly positioned signage at the point of entry undermines the enforceability of any alleged contract or charge.

1. The absence of adequate and properly positioned signage means the terms could not have been properly communicated to the driver, and therefore, the parking charge is invalid.

1. The parking company cannot lawfully pursue me as the registered keeper because they have not complied with the requirements set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Under this legislation, a parking operator may only hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge if they have fully complied with specific conditions, including serving a valid Notice to Keeper within the statutory time limit and including all the required information. As these conditions have not been met, liability cannot be transferred from the unknown driver to the keeper. Therefore, I cannot be held responsible for the charge, and I respectfully request Your Honour to strike out this claim.

1. The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, that complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act ('POFA') 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule 4.  Outwith the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke 'keeper liability'. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence:

(i). 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 (See Exhibit xx-05).

(ii). 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 (See Exhibit xx-06).

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. As a preliminary matter, I wish to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Deanne Nevers 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 Nevers 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.

1. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court 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 Particulars of Claim 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.

1. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at Manchester County Court, held that:
   

"It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080 character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars of Claim."

The same is true in this case. (Please see Exhibit 1 CPMS v Akande judgment)

19. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, 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. (Please see E

xhibit 2 CEL v Chan judgment)

A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the Particulars of Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16.  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. (Please See Exhibit 1)

20. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District  Judge Robinson considered mirror image Particulars of Claim in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (Please see Exhibit 2) 

21. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (Please See Exhibit 3) 

22. 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. (Please See Exhibit 4)

23.  The Defendant believes 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.