We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Advice needed private parking ticket – mediation appointment (Euro Parking / Gladstones Solicitors)
                
                    Neo14                
                
                    Posts: 10 Forumite
         
            
                         
            
                        
            
         Hi everyone,
I’d really appreciate some guidance on what to expect and how to approach my upcoming mediation appointment for a private parking claim.
Summary of my case:
Claimant: Euro Parking Services Ltd
Solicitor: Gladstones Solicitors Ltd
Claim issued: 15 August 2025 via Civil National Business Centre (Northampton).
Allegation: Breach of parking terms at Stack Shack (July 2024).
Total claimed: £257.50 (includes £100 PCN + £60 “contractual costs” + fees and interest).

I did park in that parking for a short period of time, while I was trying to find the resturant which is changed now.

I did park in that parking for a short period of time, while I was trying to find the resturant which is changed now.
I’ve already submitted my Acknowledgement of Service and filed a detailed defence, mainly arguing that the Particulars of Claim don’t meet CPR 16.4 requirements and citing recent cases (Civil Enforcement v Chan and CPMS v Akande).
My submitted defence was
"1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
My submitted defence was
"1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant
 asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no
 debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately
 disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim
 (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against
 the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because: (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1); (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts) (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred; (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges; (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages; (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive appellate cases:- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ Murch, ref: E7GM9W44- CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans, ref: K0DP5J30 In both cases, the claim was struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4. In those cases, the court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made: Draft OrderOf the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because: (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1); (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts) (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred; (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges; (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages; (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive appellate cases:- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ Murch, ref: E7GM9W44- CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans, ref: K0DP5J30 In both cases, the claim was struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4. In those cases, the court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made: Draft OrderOf the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
 AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do
 not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out
 the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and
 conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied
 on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
 why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of
 contract.
 AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
 served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
 done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
 AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court
 considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the
 overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of
 the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and
 a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge
 for case management
ORDER:
ORDER:
 1. The claim is struck out.
 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay
 this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this
 Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing
 which no such application may be made.
I was hoping that highlighting the shortcomings in the issued parking ticket, I will be able to get the ticket stuck off by the court. The court has received my defence, and Gladstones have sent me their completed N180 Directions Questionnaire stating they agree to mediation.
I was hoping that highlighting the shortcomings in the issued parking ticket, I will be able to get the ticket stuck off by the court. The court has received my defence, and Gladstones have sent me their completed N180 Directions Questionnaire stating they agree to mediation.
I’ve now received my own mediation appointment letter, confirming a telephone mediation is booked. It says:
My questions:
Thanks in advance for your help!"
                1) What should I expect during the mediation appointment, and how should I approach or handle it?
2) Is it worth trying to negotiate a deal during mediation — and if so, what would be a reasonable offer (if any)?
3) If no agreement is reached, how likely is it that Gladstones will drop out and not attend the court hearing?
I’d really appreciate some guidance or insight from anyone who’s been through this stage.
1        
            Comments
- 
            Advice on mediation is covered in the First 8 steps in the Template defence thread.1
 - 
            Zero offer
End call.
Thats it.3 - 
            Neo just in case you are bit lost.....go to the top of the parking tickets fines and parking page
Scroll down so you can read the stickys etc
Loads of info on here its worth reading threads everyday to get a bigger picture and try an stay up to date2 - 
            Thanks everyone.1
 - 
            Don't discuss the case on the mediation call, because its about finding a mutually agreeable financial settlement, but usually there is no agreement, just dispute
Hence, Hello, I offer £zero, no offence but, Goodbye0 
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
 - 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
 - 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
 - 454.3K Spending & Discounts
 - 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
 - 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
 - 177.5K Life & Family
 - 259.1K Travel & Transport
 - 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
 - 16K Discuss & Feedback
 - 37.7K Read-Only Boards
 
         
         