Advice needed private parking ticket – mediation appointment (Euro Parking / Gladstones Solicitors)

Coupon-mad

It's good but this is wrong:

"the sign purports to impose a zero consideration period"

It doesn't. The sign doesn't attempt that. The landowner agreement tells us that.

Neo14

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82002482#Comment_82002482

Thanks once again coupan-mad and Gr1pr- updated defence as below now: INITIAL DEFENCE:

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;(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why 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: K0DP5J30In 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 Order:Of 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: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.

SUBSTITUTE DEFENCE

IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY AND FAMILY COURT

Claim Number:

BETWEEN:

EURO PARKING SERVICES LIMITEDClaimant

-and-

Defendant:

A. Preliminary – The Claimant has failed to comply with the Court’s Order

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety.
2. The amended Particulars of Claim (“amended PoC”) purport to comply with the Order dated 11 March 2026 (the “Order”), but they do not.
3. The Order required the Claimant to identify “whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012” (POFA). The amended PoC state: “where applicable” and then “where POFA is not relied upon”. That is not a clear statement. It is an impermissible alternative pleading.
4. The Claimant has also failed to provide the Notice to Keeper (NTK). Without the NTK, the court and the Defendant cannot assess whether POFA was complied with. This alone breaches the Order.
5. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim for non‑compliance with the Order.

B. Substantive defence – no enforceable contract

1. If the court permits the claim to continue, the Defendant responds as follows.

The driver was on site for only seven minutes – no “parking” and no acceptance of terms

1. The Claimant’s own ANPR records (if disclosed) show that the vehicle was present for approximately seven minutes in total.
2. Seven minutes is insufficient time to drive into the site, find a parking space, exit the vehicle, enter either the Mosque or Stack Shack (the only two businesses whose patrons are allegedly bound by any VRM entry requirement), and return to the vehicle.
3. On the balance of probabilities, the driver was merely passing through, possibly dropping off a passenger. The driver was not a patron of either business and therefore was not subject to any obligation to enter a VRM at a kiosk.
4. The Claimant has produced no evidence that the driver ever saw, read, or accepted any terms. A contract requires a meeting of minds. A driver passing through in seven minutes cannot be said to have accepted binding terms, particularly when the only alleged “consideration” (permission to park) was never sought or needed.

No evidence of actual signage – only mock‑ups

1. The Claimant has provided only computer‑generated mock‑ups of signs, not photographs of the signs actually displayed on the date in question. The Defendant is entitled to strict proof that any legible, prominent signs were present at the entrance and throughout the site. The Claimant is put to that proof.

The sign does not apply to non‑patrons

1. Even accepting the mock‑up sign as accurate (which is denied), the sign only refers to “authorised vehicles” and a requirement to enter a VRM at a kiosk. It does not state that any vehicle that enters but does not visit the Mosque or Stack Shack will be charged. A driver who is not a patron of either business cannot be said to have breached any obligation because no obligation applies to them.
2. The Claimant has not identified any term on the sign that purports to bind a mere passer‑through. The claim therefore fails for want of any contractual basis.

Identity of the driver and POFA

1. The Claimant has not identified the driver. The Defendant is put to strict proof that the Claimant knows who was driving.
2. To the extent the Claimant relies on POFA (if it ever makes that clear), the Claimant has not provided the NTK and is put to strict proof of compliance with every paragraph of Schedule 4. The Defendant believes the NTK (if it exists) was not POFA compliant.
3. If the Claimant does not rely on POFA, it must prove the identity of the driver. Keeper status alone creates no presumption of driver liability.

The additional £60 is not recoverable

1. The mock‑up sign does not prominently state that a £60 “debt recovery” charge will be added. Any reference to “additional charges” is vague, hidden in small print, and fails the transparency test of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
2. The £60 is an unenforceable penalty and a double recovery, contrary to the indemnity principle. The Claimant is put to proof that the sum was genuinely incurred and contractually agreed.
3. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis did not approve such additional charges. HHJ Moloney’s first instance judgment (approved by the Supreme Court) made clear that the PCN sum already covers pre‑action correspondence.

Consumer Rights Act 2015 – unfair terms

1. The purported terms are unfair because:
   • (a) They seek to bind drivers who are not patrons of the two businesses.
   • (b) They impose a charge for a seven‑minute entry with no genuine loss.
   • (c) They are not transparent – no GDPR/DPA warning at the entrance, no clear warning of a charge for non‑patrons.
   • (d) The landowner agreement (if relied upon) is heavily redacted and cannot be construed against the Defendant.

Alternatively, trespass – no damages

1. If the claim is pleaded in trespass (which is not clear), no damages were caused by a vehicle driving in and out within seven minutes. There is no obstruction, no overstaying, no damage. The landowner has suffered no loss. The Claimant has no standing to sue in trespass as it is not the landowner.

Abuse of process – defective claim re‑litigated

1. The original claim was struck out for non‑compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The amended PoC remain materially deficient. Re‑litigating without curing defects is an abuse of process.

C. Conclusion

1. The Defendant respectfully requests that the court:
   • (a) strike out the claim for breach of the Order and CPR 16.4(1)(a); or
   • (b) dismiss the claim on the substantive grounds above; and
   • (c) order such costs as the court sees fit.
2. The Defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence upon disclosure of further evidence (including the NTK, the actual signage photographs, and the unredacted landowner agreement).

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence 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.

Signed:

Name:

Date:

Coupon-mad

Very good. Add the transcript to HHJ Moloney's Cambridge judgment in Beavis here:

"HHJ Moloney’s first instance judgment (approved by the Supreme Court) made clear that the PCN sum already covers pre‑action correspondence".

It's findable on a Supreme Court Blog from 2015. Don't get the wrong one.it's the Moloney judgment you need to link for your judge.