Claim Form Received from UK Car Management Limited

Coupon-mad

Most cases v Gladstones are won by Defendants. Get the claim struck out due to Chan and Akande (if your judge agrees) and it'll be over in 10 minutes.

Yes I would submit the WS close to the deadline.

mebobby

Thank you I appreciate your response. 

Is it 14 working days or normal days before I submit the WS please?

So if hearing is on the 21st August do I submit around the 6th/7th August?

If I was to lose will I get a CCJ or will I have to pay what the judge orders in terms of costs and can I be held accountable for the drivers actions?

Gr1pr

Its just days,  so subtract 14 from the hearing date,  it's that simple,  so yes,  early August,  stop overthinking it 

You would pay Gladstones the full figure awarded by the judge, usually within 28 days,  but the sooner the better , no waiting,  the potential CCJ is then expunged from the record,  stopping the CCJ,  job done,  game over 

mebobby

Thank you everyone for your help to date. I plan to say something along the lines of the following and hopefully it will suffice: 

The poc are vague and this mirrors the reasoning in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and CPMS v Akande, where similarly deficient pleadings were held to disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim. In those cases, the High Court made clear that such inadequate pleadings are liable to be struck out.

I invite the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a), on the basis that the Particulars disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

Coupon-mad

mebobby said:

Thank you everyone for your help to date. I plan to say something along the lines of the following and hopefully it will suffice: 

The poc are vague and this mirrors the reasoning in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and CPMS v Akande, where similarly deficient pleadings were held to disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim. In those cases, the High Court made clear that such inadequate pleadings are liable to be struck out.

I invite the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a), on the basis that the Particulars disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

Yes, as the preliminary matter. Plus attaching the two transcripts as your exhibit 1 and 2.

Followed by the rest of your WS.

Le_Kirk

mebobby said:

Hello @Le_Kirk, 

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.

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

Got it, just read one of @coupon-Mad's replies about this very question, which I hadn't seen before asking the question on your thread

mebobby

Could someone please have a quick look at this conclusion before I submit the the WS. Please ignore the numbering I will sort that out after I get the go ahead. Thank you in advance.

Conclusion

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.

DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

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.

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’.

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’.

Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

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))'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Coupon-mad

Remove EVERYTHING about the DLUHC. It doesn't exist any more and there is no ban on DRA fees. Cut all that out.

And I see your hearing is in August. Whatever the outcome, do come back here. If you want to make a difference to stop this utter scammery in future:

Stick around in August to take part in the Government's Public Consultation. We have an important thread about that and we need ALL Defendants to respond to the questions to shape the regulation of this rogue industry.

mebobby

Thank you I will definitely be back in August. Hopefully I would have won the case and will be back with good news.

Le_Kirk

Your conclusion is to long, if it is a conclusion it should sum up all the other points and be a succinct short paragraph!