Court Claim

1xvp1

Just a small update, I've just received the SAR response from Gladstones - it lists both PCNs, they're the exact PCNs that the housing association confirmed to me in January via a phone call and via email as cancelled.

For the second claim and the third PCN, my main defence is the action estoppel, so I should be good.

1xvp1

Good day. A few updates.

1. I've received a response from Medway court on 28 August '25 as follows "Good afternoon, I can confirm no hearing fee is required at this stage as this a preliminary hearing" in response to a request to increase the hearing length from 30 minutes and asking for a deadline for the hearing fee.

2. I've received a Witness Statement from Gladtones dated 26th August '25, through mailbox (not email)
However I cannot figure out by when I need to submit my Witness Statement. The notice of hearing only mentions this regarding the dates:

Coupon-mad

OK so to allow Gs to do what they are tasked to do, send them your WS and exhibits (and a signed & dated costs assessment) to them AT LEAST two weeks prior to the preliminary hearing.

1xvp1

Coupon-mad said:

OK so to allow Gs to do what they are tasked to do, send them your WS and exhibits (and a signed & dated costs assessment) to them AT LEAST two weeks prior to the preliminary hearing.

I'm assuming I do it via post? Can I share the draft of my witness statement once I have it here?

1xvp1

Good day, I've produced this Witness Statement draft which includes references to exhibits that I'm not going to share here. How does that look? Sorry it's a lot of text but I went through all correspondence I've had with relevant parties to build the correct chain of events and attack their WS:

Witness Statement of [Defendant]

1. I, [Defendant], of [address redacted], am the Defendant in this matter. I am the long leaseholder and registered proprietor of the property in question (Exhibit DM2). I make this statement from my own knowledge and belief in support of my defence and counterclaim.

My Lease and Parking Rights

2. My lease and solicitor’s Report on Title confirm that I have a proprietary right to park a private car in my allocated parking space (Exhibits DM3 and DM4).

3. The lease refers to “the allocated parking space”. While it does not print a bay number, the use of the word “allocated” means a specific space is reserved to me. The allocation is recorded administratively by the Housing Association and recognised in practice by both the Housing Association and UKCPM, who have issued me a permit for the same bay.

4. When I first moved in during September 2023, UKCPM wrongly issued PCNs against my vehicle in my own space before my permit details were updated. On that occasion, the Housing Association intervened and confirmed the cancellation of those charges. This reinforces that both the Housing Association and UKCPM have long recognised my right to use my allocated bay, and that any tickets issued against me were in error.

5. The Claimant relies on an agreement with the Housing Association (their Exhibit GS1). I do not dispute such a contract exists, but I am not a party to it. It cannot override or diminish my leasehold rights. The landlord cannot derogate from grant by allowing a third party to interfere with rights already conferred in the lease (Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011).

6. Courts have repeatedly upheld the principle of leasehold primacy in residential parking disputes. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] and Link Parking v Ms P (C7GF50J7, 2016), lease rights and the right to quiet enjoyment were held to take precedence over parking schemes and signage.

Background and Events

7. I moved into the property in September 2023. Because the Housing Association required an updated V5C to change permit details, I briefly received PCNs. Once my permit was approved in November 2023, UKCPM cancelled those PCNs. This shows UKCPM had discretion to cancel when appropriate.

8. On 1 April 2024, I purchased a new car and parked it in my allocated bay. Again, the Housing Association’s administrative process required an updated V5C, which I received later.

9. On 4 and 8 April 2024, the Claimant issued two PCNs against my new vehicle. A further PCN was issued on 30 April 2024. The first two PCNs form this claim. The third PCN is the subject of a separate claim being pursued by BW Legal.

10. On 13 May 2024, I updated my vehicle details with the Housing Association, who notified UKCPM. Despite this, I received repeated letters from debt recovery agents.

11. On 22 July 2024, I wrote to UKCPM directly explaining that the PCNs were issued in my own bay and requesting cancellation. UKCPM replied the next day refusing to deal with my dispute and instructing me to deal with their debt collectors instead (Exhibit DM6).

12. I also telephoned Gladstones in summer 2024 to explain the situation. They refused to engage unless I paid.

13. On 9 January 2025, following receipt of a County Court claim, I contacted the Housing Association. They confirmed in writing that the PCNs had been cancelled (Exhibit DM1). Whether this cancellation occurred earlier or only following my escalation is unclear, but either way the Claimant and its agents pursued me for charges that had been cancelled or should never have been pursued.

14. On 17 May 2025, I wrote to BW Legal regarding the separate April 30 PCN claim, warning that multiple successive claims over the same space amounted to cause of action estoppel and abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100) (Exhibit DM5).

15. On 22 July 2024 and 29 July 2024, I also raised tickets via the Housing Association’s portal complaining about UKCPM issuing charges in my own space and asking for help (Exhibits DM7 and DM8).

Why the Claimant Has No Standing

16. The Claimant may argue that my lease does not mention a specific bay number. This is misleading. My lease grants me the right to use “the allocated parking space”. That space has been consistently treated by the Housing Association and UKCPM as mine: I have always parked there, the Housing Association cancelled PCNs there, and UKCPM now recognises my permit for that bay.

17. The Claimant may also rely on the clause making rights “subject to the rules and regulations of the landlord”. This cannot be interpreted as authorising £100 charges in my own demised space. Regulations must relate to estate management (e.g. untaxed vehicles, misuse of common areas). They cannot create new financial obligations or derogate from granted rights (Link v Ms P, Saeed v Plustrade).

18. Accordingly, even if the Housing Association authorised UKCPM to manage general visitor or communal bays, that does not give the Claimant standing to penalise leaseholders in their own demised spaces.

Unreasonable Conduct

19. The Claimant pursued me despite: (a) my lease rights (DM3, DM4); (b) cancellation of PCNs by the Housing Association (DM1); (c) my July 2024 correspondence to UKCPM (DM6); and (d) my repeated attempts to resolve the matter (DM7, DM8).

20. Their behaviour amounts to unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). They ignored evidence, issued successive claims, and pursued cancelled charges.

Data Misuse

21. By continuing to process my personal data (obtained from the DVLA) and pursuing me after cancellation, the Claimant misused my data contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. In Simon Clay v CEL (2017), the court held that obtaining DVLA data without lawful basis is a breach.

Counterclaim

22. I counterclaim for £300 damages for distress and data misuse. This sum is modest compared to the time, stress, and expense caused by repeated unreasonable demands and proceedings.

Costs

23. I respectfully seek my costs under CPR 27.14, including ordinary fixed costs and further costs for unreasonable conduct.

Conclusion

24. For the reasons above, I invite the Court to dismiss the claim, uphold my counterclaim, and award costs.

Coupon-mad

No you need a statement of truth and detailed proper legal pleadings to support & explain the basis, other case law and calculations for the counterclaim you made.

Read some other counterclaim cases. Also search the forum for Charlton Simon Clay

1xvp1

Coupon-mad said:

No you need a statement of truth and detailed proper legal pleadings to support & explain the basis, other case law and calculations for the counterclaim you made.

Read some other counterclaim cases. Also search the forum for Charlton Simon Clay

@Coupon-mad

I’ve finalised my Witness Statement. It includes references to Chan, Akande, Jopson, Link, and Saeed, and a more detailed breakdown of the costs.

Could you please take a quick look and let me know if anything major stands out before I send it to the court?

Many thanks again for all your help — your guidance has been invaluable!

1. I am the Defendant in this matter. I am the long leaseholder and registered proprietor of the property referred to in this claim (Exhibit DM2). I make this statement from my own knowledge and belief in support of my defence and counterclaim.

2. My lease and solicitor’s Report on Title confirm that I have a proprietary right to park a private car in my allocated parking space (Exhibits DM3 and DM4).

3. The lease refers to “the allocated parking space”. While it does not print a bay number, the use of the word “allocated” means a specific space is reserved to me. The allocation is recorded administratively by Hyde and recognised in practice by both Hyde and UKCPM, who have issued me a permit for the same bay.

4. When I first moved in during September 2023, UKCPM wrongly issued PCNs against my vehicle in my own space before my permit details were updated. Hyde later intervened and confirmed the cancellation of those charges. This shows that both Hyde and UKCPM recognise my right to use my allocated bay, and that any tickets issued against me were in error.

5. The Claimant relies on an agreement with Hyde Housing (their Exhibit GS1). I do not dispute that such a contract exists, but I am not a party to it. It cannot override or diminish my leasehold rights. Hyde cannot derogate from grant by allowing a third party to interfere with rights already conferred in the lease (Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011).

6. Courts have repeatedly upheld the principle of leasehold primacy in residential parking disputes. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] and Link Parking v Ms P (C7GF50J7, 2016), lease rights and the right to quiet enjoyment were held to take precedence over parking schemes and signage.

7. I moved into the property in September 2023. Because Hyde required an updated V5C to change permit details, I briefly received PCNs. Once Hyde approved my permit in November 2023, CPM cancelled those PCNs. This shows CPM had discretion to cancel when appropriate.

8. On 1 April 2024, I purchased a new car and parked it in my allocated bay. Again, Hyde’s administrative process required an updated V5C, which I received later.

9. On 4 and 8 April 2024, the Claimant issued two PCNs against my new vehicle. A further PCN was issued on 30 April 2024. The first two PCNs form this claim. The third PCN is the subject of a separate claim being pursued by BW Legal.

10. On 13 May 2024, I updated my vehicle details with Hyde, who notified CPM. Despite this, I received repeated letters from debt recovery agents.

11. On 22 July 2024, I wrote to CPM directly explaining that the PCNs were issued in my own bay and requesting cancellation. CPM replied the next day refusing to deal with my dispute and instructing me to contact their debt collectors instead (Exhibit DM6).

12. I also telephoned Gladstones in summer 2024 to explain the situation. They refused to engage unless I paid.

13. On 9 January 2025, following receipt of a County Court claim, I contacted Hyde. Hyde confirmed in writing that the PCNs had been cancelled (Exhibit DM1). Whether this cancellation occurred earlier or only following my escalation is unclear, but either way the Claimant and its agents pursued me for charges that had been cancelled or should never have been pursued.

14. On 17 May 2025, I wrote to BW Legal regarding the separate April 30 PCN claim, warning that multiple successive claims over the same space amounted to cause of action estoppel and abuse of process (Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100) (Exhibit DM5).

15. The Claimant may argue that my lease does not mention a specific bay number. This is misleading. My lease grants me the right to use “the allocated parking space”. That space has been consistently treated by Hyde and CPM as mine: I have always parked there, Hyde cancelled PCNs there, and CPM now recognises my permit for that bay.

16. The Claimant may also rely on the clause making rights “subject to the rules and regulations of the landlord”. This cannot be interpreted as authorising £100 charges in my own demised space. Regulations must relate to estate management (e.g. untaxed vehicles, misuse of common areas). They cannot create new financial obligations or derogate from granted rights (Link v Ms P, Saeed v Plustrade).

17. Accordingly, even if Hyde authorised CPM to manage general visitor or communal bays, that does not give the Claimant standing to penalise leaseholders in their own demised spaces.

18. The Particulars of Claim (POC) are also defective, failing to plead a complete cause of action. As established in Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30), vague and incoherent particulars that do not specify conduct, terms, or breach are non-compliant with CPR 16.4 and PD16. The claim should therefore be struck out under CPR 3.4.

19. The Claimant pursued me despite: My lease rights (DM3, DM4); Cancellation of PCNs by Hyde (DM1); My July 2024 correspondence to CPM (DM6).

20. Their behaviour amounts to unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). They ignored evidence, issued successive claims, and pursued cancelled charges.

21. By continuing to process my personal data (obtained from the DVLA) and pursuing me after cancellation, the Claimant misused my data contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. In Simon Clay v CEL (2017), the court held that obtaining DVLA data without lawful basis is a breach.

22. I counterclaim £300 in total for distress and data misuse under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. This is a modest sum reflecting the distress, anxiety, and disruption caused by the Claimant’s repeated pursuit of cancelled PCNs, misuse of my personal data, and failure to respect my leasehold rights.

23. The Claimant’s conduct has caused significant distress, wasted time, and loss of peace of mind over a period exceeding twelve months. I have spent at least eight hours preparing documents, researching the law, and responding to correspondence.

24. The amount sought is consistent with awards made in Vidal-Hall v Google [2015] EWCA Civ 311, Blamires v LGO [2014] 3SP00071, and falls well within the lower Vento band for injury to feelings (£900–£8,800). It is also proportionate given the Claimant’s unlawful use of my DVLA data and prolonged course of conduct.

25. I also seek the recovery of the £35 counterclaim filing fee and fixed costs under CPR 27.14, with additional costs for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to the Claimant’s continued pursuit of a meritless and cancelled claim.

26. For the reasons above, I respectfully invite the Court to dismiss the claim, uphold my counterclaim, and award costs.

Coupon-mad

Who signed G's WS? If it was a paralegal (and not the parking firm client) see the WS by @maxim024