UK Car Park Management Gladstones claim

Stableintrovert

Gr1pr said:

No, you meant witness statement,  no defence is 48 pages, its  typically 2 pages and around 30 paragraphs 

Its your bespoke witness statement that you are drafting in word or as pdfs,  but the final document will be a pdf 

Just so you know,  you will be drafting it, because this is a self help forum, nobody here will write ut for you,  hence why you study good examples to learn from  ( most people here have never drafted a WS, myself included   )

Erm I said I meant WS and i also said I'm drafting it. I'm very grateful for any help but I'm not expecting anyone to do the job for me and I'm not sure why you're implying that.

Stableintrovert

Johnersh said:

The op may wish to know that correspondence can be collated into date order and attached to the statement as a single exhibit - there is no need for each to be appended separately, so long as everything has a page number.

There is a free tool for collating court bundles which I've not used, but may be worth looking at - buntool.co.uk 

This will not require a statement chock full of template defence if the correspondence shows clearly that a driver's details and address were provided in good time. That is the only real evidence required (plus an account that on the day X borrowed my car etc).

Thanks so much

Stableintrovert

Coupon-mad said:

You can either:

 - screenshot emails and put those images into your word document with an exhibit number at the top

or

- save each full email as a PDF then use a 'merge PDF' online tool to make them into one document.

Here's my first draft. I need to clean it up, add numbering etc and I'm not sure all of the bits apply exactly to me. Please do you have any thoughts?:

Fact and sequence of event

I sold the vehicle: XXX XXXX to my son in November 2022.  He lives at XXXXXX and has a parking permit for the vehicle.

On 14/12/2023 I received a PCN forwarded from my previous address by the new owner of the property.  The PCN had been issued to my son, for parking in his allocated parking space but ‘not displaying his permit’, something he denies.

As soon as I received the PCN, I telephoned the number on the letter, but was there was no answer. I continued to phone, sometimes several times a day, holding on for up to an hour at a time.  On 24/12/23 I left a message on the company portal giving them the driver’s details.

I then contacted the complaints department via email.  On 10/01/24  a representative of the company phoned me from (tel number) and took all my son’s details, promising to contact him and take payment.  She then rang my son, he explained that he had indeed been displaying his permit, but she said he would still have to pay the fine that that they would be in contact. Again he gave her his full details: name and address. (witness statement: …)

I continued to try and contact DRP, and eventually got an email back (exhibit…) from the complaints department attaching letters that I did not receive stating that ‘the letters outline the details on to provide the details for the driver of the vehicle if this was not yourself, and these were not provided within the stated time frame, therefore you remain liable as the keeper of the vehicle under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.’  

I then began to be contacted by Gladstones.  On informing them that I had provided their client with the driver’s details multiple times, I received the reply ‘exhibit…)

I have sought instruction from our client who has informed me that there is no record that you attempted to transfer liability in relation to this contravention event. Do you have any proof of contact regarding this transfer of liability?

I then forwarded them the email trail (exhibit …).  They then replied (exhibit…) and said: ‘By way of update, our client intends to proceed with the claim on the basis that you did not comply with the timeline provided to transfer liability of the claim.

No Breach Occurred

I strongly deny that I breached any contract. I was not driving the vehicle and have provided the name of the driver in good time.   The fact that the driver has not been contacted is a failure on the part of the parking company, not a breach on my part.

Appeal and Attempted Payment.

Upon receiving the PCN, I immediately contacted the company with the driver’s details.  The company also contacted the driver verifying his claim.   The driver was unable to pay as the automatic payment was set up for me and he was unable to pay.

Exaggerated Claim and Market Failure Concerns

The alleged core debt could not have exceeded £100, in line with the applicable parking Code of Practice at the time. The additional fees claimed are inflated, unjustified, and not demonstrably incurred by the Claimant.

The Claimant has not provided a complete breakdown showing precisely how the enhanced total was calculated. The costs schedule lists individual components and adds a 20% uplift and VAT, but it lacks: clear intermediary steps showing the mathematics behind the enhancement, a rationale or legal basis for the 20% enhancement, clear delineation between base costs, the enhancement, and VAT in a transparent stepwise total. I invite the court to require strict proof of:

(I DON’T THINK THIS IS RIGHT FOR MINE AS THEY CLAIMED:

£100 FOR THE PCN, 70 FOR CONTRACTUAL COSTS PURSUANT TO THE CONTRACT AND PCN TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AND STATUTORY INTEREST OF 15.55 AT 8% PER ANNUM CONTINUING AT .04 PER DAY

the alleged contractual breach, 

how the amount now claimed was derived, including interest calculation 

5. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court emphasised that parking charges must be proportionate and clearly communicated. In this case, the signage failed to explain the requirement to register vehicle details at reception or the implications of not doing so. SHOULD I TAKE THIS OUT?

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) published its Parking Code of Practice on 7 February 2022, highlighting systemic issues within the private parking sector, including:

“...a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.”

The Government’s draft Impact Assessment (July 2023) revealed that the true cost of debt recovery is just £8.42 per case, not the £70+ routinely added. This suggests that the claim has been artificially inflated for profit and amounts to double recovery.

Courts have previously criticised similar overcharges:

In ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), HHJ Hegarty held that inflating a charge to £135 for ‘admin costs’ was excessive and penal in nature.

Her Honour Judge Jackson in the County Court also criticised this practice as unjustified and predatory.

The DLUHC explicitly describes the parking enforcement model as an example of “market failure”. This should prompt judicial scrutiny of excessive charges and aggressive litigation practices in cases like this one.

The claim exceeds the cap permitted under Schedule 4 Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as the sum sought is both disproportionate and not transparent.

Furthermore, the Claimant is only permitted to rely on PoFA if the driver was not named prior to proceedings - the ability to transfer to a driver ends upon date of commencement of Court proceedings, which were actually issued 04/02/2025, over a year after they had been provided.

Specifically the transfer can take place on any date before then. The 28th day after notice to keeper was given is merely the end of the notice period, following which they can take action.  See ss.5(1)(II) and 5(2).

Moreso, pursuing the keeper is tightly controlled. The Claimant will also be restricted to recovery of the maximum sum in the notice to keeper - s.4(5), which is £100 plus the court fees now proceedings are ongoing.

Statute uses the term *maximum* sum, which is unambiguous. So the sum in the notice, not more.  At a brushstroke that ought to clear out the bolt on charges. SHOULD I LEAVE THIS IN

The defendant cannot be expected to accept any mediation proposal greater than a sum permitted by law with erroneous interest charges on top.  

 I submit that the Claimant has incurred no additional costs resulting from the parking event. As held in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the full parking charge (post-discount) is intended to cover the entire operation, including administrative tasks and correspondence. In that case, the charge was £85 and deemed sufficient to cover 4–5 letters, including the pre-action phase.

Relevant Legal Authorities and Precedents

Excel Parking Services v Lamoureux (Skipton, 2016) – The court ruled in favour of the defendant where a good-faith attempt to pay and poor appeal handling were evident. This is highly relevant as I provided details of the driver, who was indeed contacted by the Claimant.

Civil Procedure Rules – Overriding Objective (CPR 1.1) – Requires fair treatment of all parties. Given my position as keeper when the driver’s details had been fully provided, I respectfully submit that the Claimant’s conduct was oppressive.

British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice – Operators are required to make signage clear and handle appeals fairly. The Claimant failed in this respect.

 Unreasonable Conduct and Request for Dismissal

 I respectfully ask the Court to consider:

- That I did not intentionally breach any rules.

- That I acted in good faith and provided the driver’s details in good time

- That the Claimant actually contacted and spoke to the driver

- That the driver was indeed displaying the appropriate document.

- That I attempted to resolve the matter early by contacting the company, and latterly by repeating all this to the Claimant’s legal representative.  That my financial circumstances make any penalty or cost severely unjust.

 Conclusion

The Defendant asks the Court to dismiss the Claim entirely. In the alternative, I respectfully request that no costs or enforcement be awarded against me due to my personal hardship and the overall conduct of the Claimant and their agents.

The Defendant submits that the claim is entirely without merit and invites the Claimant to discontinue now to avoid further wasting the Court's time and incurring costs.

The Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the persuasive judgment of His Honour Judge Murch in Civil Enforcement v Chan (August 2023), where a similarly vague Particulars of Claim (PoC) led to strike out and full costs awarded to the motorist. Notably, the PoC in Chan included a brief reference to the alleged contravention (parking duration), whereas in this case, no such detail is offered at all.

 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 Impact Assessment confirmed that the true cost of so-called "debt recovery" is approximately £8.42, far below the £70 typically added. This reinforces the conclusion that such claims are routinely inflated.

With the DLUHC’s proposed ban on false add-on costs, there is a compelling public interest in striking out claims like this. If inflated parking charges are only disallowed at hearing stage in the small fraction of contested cases, then hundreds of thousands of consumers will continue to suffer harm — either paying inflated sums or receiving County Court Judgments in fear of enforcement threats.

In light of the above, the Defendant asks the Court:

(a) to award standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) to consider the Claimant’s conduct unreasonable, and to award further costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and CPR 46.5.

Finally, the Court’s attention is drawn to the common tactic in this sector of filing a late Notice of Discontinuance. While CPR 38.6 normally disapplies costs in small claims (CPR 38.6(3)), the White Book notes at annotation 38.6.1 that where a party has acted unreasonably, costs may still be awarded (see CPR 27.14(2)(g)).

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 a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Johnersh

Clarity is important. Make it punchy and clear.

You were the owner and RK of car xxx.

On date you sold the car to your son. It was his responsibility to submit the documentation to the DVLA (if that was the agreement).

The PCN was issued to the o/p - presumably because your son had not or not correctly notified the dvla.

You received a PCN forwarded by new owner. You attempted to contact C on (list dates). You did contact D on date.

Etc.


Most of that is irrelevant. Scroll back and refer to the law about keeper liability. There is no legal basis for C to bring this claim if notification was provided prior to the commencement of proceedings.

Stableintrovert

@Johnersh
On it, thank you.

Coupon-mad

Obviously you don't copy irrelevant things like "the signage failed to explain the requirement to register vehicle details at reception or the implications of not doing so."

And UK Car Park Management Limited are not even in the BPA AOS , they are in the other Trade Body old boys' club, the IPC. So you can't copy a WS talking about the BPA Code of Practice.

Why not search the forum for keywords like UKCPM Gladstones claim and read a few examples?

And can you prove this with a phone log? And which company do you mean? Parking firm or one of their debt crawlers?

"On 10/01/24  a representative of the company phoned me from (tel number)"

And what about appending your son's lease or tenancy agreement (any clause about parking?) and a copy of his permit, too?

Stableintrovert

@Coupon-mad
 Oops thought I'd got all those. I'll take that out.  I'll do all that. Thank you so much. 

Stableintrovert

IPC code of practice states the following. Worth including?

Liability It is the driver that is liable for the parking charge. NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal. Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) provides a mechanism in England and Wales for recovering an unpaid parking charge where the driver’s details are not known and the conditions within the Act are met. If the conditions of the Act have been met, liability for the unpaid parking charge may be applied as noted in Table C below.

Stableintrovert

Also, I never received a PCN actually (and nothing on the car, my son says) - just a letter from Debt Recovery Plus so I'll change that.

Coupon-mad

Please could you also edit your thread title as it's irrelevant to your current stage and is off-putting to those posters wanting to help.

Stableintrovert said:

IPC code of practice states the following. Worth including?

Liability It is the driver that is liable for the parking charge. NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal. Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) provides a mechanism in England and Wales for recovering an unpaid parking charge where the driver’s details are not known and the conditions within the Act are met. If the conditions of the Act have been met, liability for the unpaid parking charge may be applied as noted in Table C below.

No, not only is that unhelpful but that version didn't apply on the material date (Dec 2023).

There is a whole list of suggested exhibits in the NEWBIES thread already.