Help Defending A Very Silly PCN From UK CAR PARK MANAGMENT LIMITED

Surj_iN

So, I've received my hearing date 15/10/25 and the Claimants witness statement. 

Cant lie reading through it is very overwhelming and makes me feel like I don't have a leg to stand on.

I need to write my own in response now, any pointers? 
        

Surj_iN

They're still claiming I remained in the car park and deny 'double dipping' occurred. And that it's irrelevant as just by entering the site I'm in breach on contract, surely that's nuts?!! 

I have digital evidence that I left the car park, like google maps location tracking and google pay also logs where transaction take place with time stamps. Could that be considered as evidence?

Coupon-mad

Surj_iN said on 17 April

Just received this via text message.

Dear Mr #####.
Amount due: £292.34
Our records show that you have an unpaid County Court Judgment. We are now instructed to consider instructing a Court Bailiff to recover the monies from you. This will increase the amount owed and could lead to the seizure of your goods. To prevent enforcement action and help repair your credit profile you must pay the outstanding balance in full immediately. Gladstones Solicitors

Is this just intimation?

Include the above as an exhibit to show intimidation.

A recent WS by @aza123 is recent & has the Chan & Akande judgments that you also rely upon. Click & read their thread.

Surj_iN said:

They're still claiming I remained in the car park and deny 'double dipping' occurred. And that it's irrelevant as just by entering the site I'm in breach on contract, surely that's nuts?!! 

I have digital evidence that I left the car park, like google maps location tracking and google pay also logs where transaction take place with time stamps. Could that be considered as evidence?

Obviously yes!

Also search the forum for the name of the signatory of the Gladstones WS. Loads of WS examples recently tear apart their rubbish!

A Gladstones fresh-faced paralegal kid is not a witness. Your evidence will prevail. Don't forget to ask for your costs at the end of the hearing before you leave.

Surj_iN

How's this as a start? 

1. Introduction 

I deny that the Claimant is entitled to any relief or the sum claimed. 
I deny any breach of contract by myself as the driver of the vehicle. 
Liability is denied in full. The Particulars of Claim ("POC") are vague, boilerplate, and provide insufficient clarity. 

 

2. Preliminary Matter – Strike Out Request 

The Claimant's POC are incoherent, sparse, and non-compliant with CPR 16.4, Practice Direction 16, and Practice Direction 7. 
The POC do not disclose a valid cause of action and fail to state all necessary facts required for the Defendant to understand and respond. 
I respectfully request that the Court considers striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) for failure to comply with rules, and for disclosing no reasonable grounds. 
I refer to the following persuasive authorities: 

• Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) — HHJ Murch held on 15 August 2023 that the POC failed to set out the conduct that amounted to breach. 

• Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) — HHJ Evans held on 10 May 2024 that generic template pleadings are insufficient and must set out basic facts. 

In both cases, the claims were struck out. The POC in my case are even more vague and fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and PD16 para 7.5. 

 

Facts of the Alleged Incident 

I am the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. 
On 09/04/2024, I entered the car park at approximately 10:48 AM to drop off my wife, toddler (2 years old), and newborn (3 months old) child at a play centre ("Glow Baby") located adjacent to the car park to gain safe access. 
I exited the car park shortly after and returned later to collect my family, departing again by 12:26 PM. 
I have digital evidence confirming that I physically left the car park between these two visits, including: 

• Google Maps location tracking, which shows my device’s movement away from the site, and 

• Google Pay transaction records showing purchases made away from the car park, with exact timestamps. 

The Claimant has misinterpreted this as a single continuous stay — a known ANPR error referred to as "double dipping". 
The IPC Code of Practice 7.3, Note 1 warns of such ANPR faults and requires manual checks to avoid penalising drivers incorrectly. 

Surj_iN

Intimidation and Unfair Practices 

Following a court error, I received an aggressive and misleading message from the Claimant’s solicitors, Gladstones Solicitors, included as Exhibit X: 

“Dear Mr #####. 
Amount due: £292.34 
Our records show that you have an unpaid County Court Judgment. We are now instructed to consider instructing a Court Bailiff to recover the monies from you. This will increase the amount owed and could lead to the seizure of your goods. To prevent enforcement action and help repair your credit profile you must pay the outstanding balance in full immediately.” 

This message was sent despite the matter still being disputed and ongoing, and appears designed to intimidate me into payment under threat of enforcement action. 
I submit this is abusive and unethical behaviour which the Court should not condone. 

Coupon-mad

Too short ... and you haven't referred to the Chan & Akande cases by exhibit numbers (you have to exhibit the actual transcripts as evidence or the judge can't read them).

You need to link the judge to the Code of Practice and be sure it's the right version for the date of parking. Have you checked the version? Link it for the judge to read.

In that draft, you also have no standard introduction of who you are and what you will say (always stated at the start) and no ending. No statement of truth, no signature/date?

And you've covered none of the usual matters in WS that we see and have included none of the usual other exhibits that are listed in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread. Did you miss reading that section under the red heading 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'? Take a look. Beef up your exhibits!

You also haven't attacked their WS and exposed the problems with the 'witness' - a Gladstones 12 year old employee who isn't a witness at all and won't attend the hearing!

Normally people talk about what rubbish young 'Joshua' has stated. Search for his name (or whichever name has signed off their trash) and read some Gladstones ones where people have already done this.

Recent examples of decent WS are by

Feyla

Char27

aza123

Surj_iN

How is this then?

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT 

1. I am ##### of #####, the defendant in these proceedings. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based on my own personal understanding and recollection of the facts. 

1. Throughout this statement, I will refer to exhibits contained within the evidence bundle, identifying them by page and reference numbers where necessary. I appear before the court as a litigant in person and do not have formal legal representation or training. I have done my utmost to set out my case and supporting evidence clearly and honestly, and I respectfully ask the court to bear this in mind. I now repeat my defence and state as follows: 

 

Preliminary Issue: Application to Strike Out the Claim 

 

1. As a preliminary point, I draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the Claimant’s Witness Statement, signed by #### of Gladstones Solicitors, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32. These rules require that a witness statement must be made by a person with first-hand knowledge of the facts. Paragraph 18.2 of PD 32 further states that the statement should be written in the witness’s own words and explain how they have direct knowledge of the matters set out. 

 

1. In this case, Ms #### had no involvement in the alleged incident and therefore cannot give evidence of fact. Her statement is effectively a solicitor’s argument presented under the guise of evidence, which falls short of the required standard. 

 

1. Given this non-compliance, I respectfully invite the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) for failure to adhere to the relevant rules and practice directions. 

 

1. I respectfully draw the Court’s attention to two very recent and persuasive appeal decisions which support the striking out of claims of this nature. Considering the Overriding Objective, I submit that this baseless claim ought properly to be dismissed. Bulk-issuing litigators are aware of the Practice Directions and yet persist in submitting vague, template-based pleadings. Where claimants continue to adopt this approach, they cannot reasonably be surprised when the Court exercises its powers under CPR 3.4 to strike out such defective claims, as has already been established in persuasive case law. 

 

 

1. The first relevant authority is the appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44). In that case, decided on 15 August 2023, HHJ Murch held that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(e) and PD 16.7.5, as they did not set out the alleged conduct said to constitute a breach of contract upon which the claim was based. (See Exhibit 1). 

 

 

1. The second persuasive authority is Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30). In a judgment given on 10 May 2024, HHJ Evans confirmed that Particulars of Claim must set out the essential facts upon which the claimant relies to prove their case. (See Exhibit 2). 

 

1. In my submission, this claim should have been rejected at the outset by the County Court Business Centre. The claimant, a legally represented parking company, has knowingly failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules. The Particulars of Claim lack any meaningful detail, failing even to specify the alleged contractual term said to have been breached. Indeed, these PoCs are less specific than those already struck out in Chan and Akande, leaving no coherent factual basis for the cause of action. 

 

Facts of the Alleged Incident 

1. I confirm that I am both the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. 

 

1. On 09/04/2024, at around 10:48 AM, I entered Queens Apartments Robertson Terrace, Hastings TN34 1JN briefly in order to drop off my wife, our toddler (aged 2), and our newborn (aged 3 months) at the play centre known as Glow Baby, which is situated adjacent to the car park (see Exhibit 3). Glow Baby pic of location 

 

1. This was purely for the purpose of ensuring they could access the venue safely. 

 

1. After dropping them off, I exited the car park and left the site to shop at Aldi, situated on the Bulverhythe Retail Park 2.7 miles away on average a 10-15 minute drive depending on traffic.  

 

1. I stayed on Bulverhythe Retail Park for just over an hour. 

 

1. I then returned to Queens Apartments Robertson Terrace, Hastings TN34 1JN to collect my family and departed again at approximately 12:26 PM. 

  

1. I hold clear digital evidence confirming that I physically left the car park between these two visits. This includes: 

 

Google Maps location data, showing my movement away from the site during the relevant period. (See Exhibit 4) Screenshot of map 

 

Google Pay transaction records, which prove that I made purchases elsewhere at specific times between the two visits. (See Exhibit 5) WhatsApp Image 

 

Despite this, the Claimant has wrongly treated the two separate visits as a single continuous stay. This is a well-documented fault with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems, commonly referred to as “double dipping.” 

 

1. The risk of this exact type of error is highlighted in the IPC Code of Practice (para. 7.3, Note 1), which requires operators to conduct manual checks to prevent innocent motorists from being unfairly penalised. The Claimant’s failure to comply with this duty has led directly to this claim being brought against me without justification. 

 

Poor Placement and Visibility of Signage 

 

1. I submit that the Claimant’s evidence does not demonstrate that the contractual terms were prominently displayed, legible, or accessible to drivers. Clear and adequate signage is a fundamental requirement for any alleged contract to be enforceable. 

 

1. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that the enforceability of a parking charge depends on whether the driver was given sufficient notice of the terms and conditions. Where signage is inadequate — whether due to poor positioning or obscured text — the alleged contract cannot be binding. 

 

1. However, the Beavis case is distinguishable. In that situation, the signage was unusually large, in bold text, and prominently placed at eye level throughout the site. The Judges placed considerable weight on this clear and repeated signage in reaching their conclusion. That is not the case here: the signage relied upon by the Claimant is poorly positioned, and not of the same conspicuous standard. (See Exhibit 7) Pic of both signs 

 

1. For a contract to be enforceable, the terms must be clearly displayed and communicated before any alleged breach. At no point during entering and exiting was it clear I was entering a ‘contact’ due to the poor placement, height and location. 

 

1. In this case, the Claimant has not discharged their burden of proof to show that the terms were properly communicated. Accordingly, no contract was formed, and the charge is unenforceable. 

 

Intimidation and Unfair Practices  

 

1. Following an admin error by CNBC, I received an aggressive and misleading message from the Claimant’s solicitors, Gladstones Solicitors. (See Exhibit 8)  

 

1. This message was sent despite the matter still being disputed and ongoing and appears designed to intimidate me into payment under threat of enforcement action. Going against MHCLG Private parking code of practice 5 September 2025.  

 

This government is committed to ensuring that motorists are not intimidated during the debt recovery stage and that they are not misled, resulting in them taking a decision that they might not otherwise have taken.  
 

1. I submit this is abusive and unethical behaviour which the Court should not condone. 

 

 

Surj_iN

I will need to add a conclusion and statement of truth, but on the right track?  

Surj_iN

Coupon-mad said:

You need to link the judge to the Code of Practice and be sure it's the right version for the date of parking. Have you checked the version? Link it for the judge to read.

Glad you pointed this out, I have been using the newest version!  

Surj_iN

Conclusion

In summary, this claim is without merit. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Directions, and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Particulars of Claim are vague, the signage relied upon is inadequate, and the alleged breach has not been properly evidenced. In fact, the evidence I have provided demonstrates that no contravention occurred.

The authorities I have referred to, including Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande, make it clear that poorly pleaded claims such as this should not proceed. Furthermore, the attempt to impose unfair and disproportionate additional costs is contrary to government guidance and established case law.

For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the claim should be struck out or dismissed in its entirety. In addition, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g), I ask the Court to consider awarding my costs, as detailed in the attached Schedule of Costs, on the basis that the Claimant has acted unreasonably in pursuing a meritless claim and has caused me unnecessary time and expense in defending it.

---

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts set out in this witness statement are true. I am aware that if I make, or cause to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a Statement of Truth without an honest belief in its truth, I may be subject to proceedings for contempt of court.

Signed: