Claim Form Received from UK Car Management Limited

mebobby

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. I would like to draw 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 PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). I believe 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. (Please See Exhibit 1- Particulars of Claim).

1. 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 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 2- Civil Enforcement v Chan Judgement)

1. Similarly, 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. (Please see Exhibit 3- Parallel Parking v Anon Judgement)

1. 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 4- Judgement made by District Judge Sprague)

1. 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 See Exhibit 4- Judgement by Judge McMurtie and District Judge Ranson)

1. 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.

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. I would  also like  to  highlight  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

1. 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.

1. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases and the transcripts are below 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 dd not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed and Excel's claim  was dismissed (See Exhibit xx-09).

(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-10).

1. 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.

1. 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. 

1. I have no prior knowledge of, nor have I previously visited the car park in question: 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. 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 the car park. (Please see Exhibit 5- Signage upon entering the car park) 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. (Please see Exhibit 6- ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis Judgement)

Observations on the Claimant’s Witness Statement 

1. The Claimant acknowledges in paragraph 31 that no Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued on 5th March 2024, the date of the alleged contravention. Furthermore, I confirm that I did not receive any PCN from the Claimant on or after 15th March 2024. 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. The claimant has submitted an order form which purports to show that a contract was formed with an entity named Speedwell Properties Limited. However, upon investigation, Speedwell Properties Limited appears to be a provider of general medical practice services and there is no indication that it holds any ownership or management rights over Findlay Road Retail Park. Furthermore, the claimant has provided no evidence—such as a land registry document, lease agreement, or written authorisation from the landowner—confirming that Speedwell Properties Limited is entitled to enter into a parking management agreement for that location. As such, the claimant has failed to demonstrate that it has the necessary authority to operate on or enforce parking terms at Findlay Road Retail Park. (Please see Exhibit 7- Order Form submitted by the Claimant)

1. The audit report provided by the claimant cannot be considered a valid parking agreement: An audit report merely serves as a review or internal document and does not establish or evidence the existence of a legally binding contract between the landowner and the claimant. (Please see Exhibit 8- Audit report submitted by the Claimant)

1. The alleged agreement submitted by the claimant is dated 15/02/2020. Clause 6 of the key terms for UK Car Park Management Limited explicitly states that the agreement runs for an initial period of three years from the 'go-live' date. (Please see Exhibit 9- UK Car Park Management Key Terms) Assuming the contract commenced around the date specified, it would have expired in or around February 2023, and no renewal or extension has been evidenced by the claimant.

1. The claimant cannot rely on an expired agreement to pursue claims, nor can they lawfully issue PCNs in their own name without an active, binding contract with the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof with regards to the renewal of the contract.

1. In the case of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), it was held that a parking company must have a proprietary interest in the land or be able to demonstrate that it has been properly authorised by the landholder to manage parking and enforce terms. Failure to provide such evidence renders any enforcement action invalid. (Please see Exhibit 10- Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC).

1. The claimant has failed to prove that it has legal standing or the necessary authority to bring this claim, and the claim should be dismissed on that basis.

1. There is no photographic evidence of the actual signage at the site, which is crucial to substantiate the Claimant’s assertion of proper notification of terms. Merely providing a printout of what the signage is alleged to state does not meet the standard of proof required. In UK Parking Control Ltd v Mr. P (2015), the court held that printouts and documents not supported by photographic or on-site evidence of the actual terms are insufficient to establish that the signage was clearly visible and enforceable at the time of the alleged event. Without actual photographic evidence showing the signage in situ, I submit that the Claimant has not met the burden of proof regarding the terms and conditions they are seeking to enforce. 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. (Please see Exhibit 10 - UK Parking Control Ltd v Mr. P (2015)

1. Exhibit GS3 provided by the Claimant shows a vehicle that is clearly different from the one involved in the alleged offence, which raises serious doubts about the accuracy and relevance of the evidence provided by the Claimant. As such, this exhibit serves no legitimate purpose in supporting the claim and casts significant doubt on the reliability of the rest of the evidence presented. 

1. Therefore, I respectfully submit that the Claimant’s evidence, particularly Exhibit GS2 and GS3, are inadequate and unreliable. Without photographic evidence of the actual signage, and with questions raised about the accuracy of the vehicle identification, the case lacks sufficient foundation to proceed.

Conclusion

1. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.

1. I request that the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC. It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the defendant's parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation. In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

1. There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

1. With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

1. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:

1. standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

1. for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

1. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "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)).”

1. The claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) by not providing a valid Notice to Keeper (NtK). Furthermore, the witness statement submitted in support of the claim has been signed by an individual who is not a director or an authorised representative of UK Car Park Management Ltd, casting further doubt on the legitimacy of the evidence presented.

1. The claimant has also acknowledged that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was not issued on the alleged date of contravention, undermining the basis of the claim. In addition, the claimant has failed to demonstrate that it has the legal standing to bring this claim in its own name. No valid contract has been produced—only an audit report, which does not constitute a legally binding agreement between the claimant and the landowner.

1. The claimant has also failed to provide any evidence to show they are authorised by the legal owner of the land to operate, enforce parking terms, or pursue claims. No landowner contract or land title documentation has been submitted.

1. In light of these substantial deficiencies—including non-compliance with POFA, lack of a valid contract, lack of landowner authority, and procedural inconsistencies—I respectfully request that the Court strike out this claim in its entirety.

mebobby

made some revisions to the witness statement last night, and the above reflects my current draft. Please disregard the numbering for now—I'll finalise that once I receive confirmation that the content is satisfactory. I also intend to incorporate points 4 to 10 from the updated defence, as outlined above.

Coupon-mad

Good. But does this and the exhibits take the bundle over 50 pages (the limit for courts to accept)?

mebobby

The witness statement is 8 pages, and the total submission should be around 20 pages.

If points 4–10 in the defence above are accurate do I include them in the conclusion or just before?

Do Gladstones tend to pay the court fees by the deadline? Also, what are the chances they might discontinue the case? Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

They don't discontinue. There will be a hearing.

The order of paragraphs is up to you! Whatever flows best. Read the extra paras and make sure there's no repetition of things you already have covered.

mebobby

Thank you for confirming. 

When I attend the hearing do I just say whatever I have done so in the WS?

Le_Kirk

mebobby said:

The witness statement is 8 pages, and the total submission should be around 20 pages.

If points 4–10 in the defence above are accurate do I include them in the conclusion or just before?

Do Gladstones tend to pay the court fees by the deadline? Also, what are the chances they might discontinue the case? Thanks in advance.

When I attend the hearing do I just say whatever I have done so in the WS?

What defence?  What points 4-10?  If you are referring to your original defence, you don't need to put any of it in the WS, as the judge and claimant will have a copy of your defence. The judge will guide you as to what he/she wants to hear from you.

mebobby

Hello @Le_Kirk, 

This was the response I received from Coupon-mad:

Either. But isn't the a-k list of suggested exhibits helpful (see NEWBIES thread)? Pretty sure some of those are accompanied by links.

Now as to that draft WS, remove ALL the bottom three quarters blurb including the Exaggerated Claim and Market Failure' heading downwards. In the bin.

Then replace that chunk with paras 4-10 of the new Template Defence.

Then add your statement of truth and your signature & date.

Don't forget to attach a separate sheet headed Costs Assessment. It's not an exhibit. Search the forum to see examples.

Thats why I was asking if points 4-10 were the correct ones I used from the Defence?

mebobby

What are the chances of winning the case against Gladstones?

Would it be worth submitting the WS 15 days before the Hearing Date so the Solicitors don't have a chance to submit supplementary WS and is it 14 working days or normal days. Thank you in advance.