ES PARKING, GLADSTONES court claim 2025

Not_A_Hope

You have to submit your WS to the court and PPC 14 days before 29th May i.e. the 15th May. You could check with the court whether ES Parking have paid the trial fee by the deadline of 4pm 1st May and confirm whether the court have struck out the claim or not. If the hearing is going ahead you will have almost two weeks to finalise and submit your WS. If ES Parking submit a very late WS you can always add a supplementary WS to address any additional issues. If their court strikes out the claim you can relax - job done

Coupon-mad

The recent WS by @JackR1 includes HHJ Moloney's transcript as well as Edward, Smith, Wilkinson, Chan and Akande.

You'll need ALL those as exhibits.

Canvasdesign

Hi everyone. I tried to call the court today after 4pm and couldnt get through. I was eventually put on hold for 30 minutes and it cut off just before 5pm. I will try again on Tuesday.

I have prepared the witness statement, well actually been preparing it since Xmas, and is submitted here for approval/comments please.

I have attached evidence that is only unique to this case. All the others I have linked to or referenced as I am sure the courts are familiar with these now.

Thank you all so much in advance.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BURNLEY

Claim No: xxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

E S Parking Enforcement Ltd

Claimant

- and -

xxxxxxxxx

WITNESS STATEMENT

_______________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made, and I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle, registration number xxxxxxxxx on the date of the alleged event.  

The facts and matters set out in this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and are based on my own direct experience unless otherwise stated, I will then state the source of my information, referring to reference numbers where appropriate. 

Throughout this statement I will refer to exhibits contained within this witness statement, identifying them by page/paragraph where necessary 

This statement is intended to stand as evidence in chief at the hearing.

I am a litigant in person with no formal training, and no formal legal representation I have done my utmost to present my case and supporting evidence clearly and truthfully . 

Preliminary Matter; The claim should be struck out 

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. 

2. 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 Exhibits - CHAN

3. 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 Exhibits - AKANDE

4.  In April 2023, HHJ Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re-claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation. HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed. 

See Exhibits - EDWARDS

5. 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. This has made it difficult to respond effectively to the claim.  See Exhibits -  MM-POC

6. Lack of Particulars: The Claimant has not complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) by failing to provide key facts. Although the date is on the POC, there are no times of entry and exit and the breach is not outlined. See Exhibits -  MM-POC

7. Unclear Case: You cannot properly respond to the allegations without knowing the exact time the breach allegedly occurred.

Factual Background of the Visit

8. The alleged incident occurred last Year on the 21st August 2025, Holmes Mill Clitheroe. Due to the significant passage of time my specific recollection of the car park layout, signage etc is limited. However, my standard practice is always to comply with parking regulations, and I would not intentionally park for an extended period. 

9. The vehicle in question is a 22 year old vintage Subaru Impreza.

10. The Defendant was the driver on the material date and entered the Holmes Mill Clitheroe car park with the genuine intention of eating there. As the vehicle was being parked near to the car park entrance, it unexpectedly began to emit steam and leak fluid from the engine area. Concerned for safety and potential damage, the Defendant turned off the engine and contacted Brian Coward (Cams Darwen Mechanic) for advice. The mechanic advised not to open the bonnet until the car had cooled down, as this could be dangerous. The Defendant then went into the pub to purchase a glass of water and to explain the situation to a member of staff, who reassured the Defendant that it would be fine to remain in the car park while the vehicle cooled. The Defendant, a young female, was alone and physically unable to push or relocate the vehicle. Any alleged overstay was therefore the result of unavoidable mechanical failure and reliance on staff assurance, not a deliberate or negligent act. SEE Exhibits MM2 - Mechanic Statement

Site Details 

11.The benchmark for fair signage was established in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. As shown in Exhibit (MM1) the sign in that case was large, prominent, and located at the entrance. 

12. Clear and adequate signage is a fundamental requirement for any alleged contract to be enforceable. 

13.  I do not recall ever seeing any other signage at the entrance to the site on my numerous visits to this Mill regarding Parking contracts and terms and conditions. There is a sign approx 10-15 metres in from the entrance of the Car Park but the terms and conditions appear to have been snapped off or vandalised.  SEE Exhibits MM - HM1

14. I have trawled the internet for photographic evidence of historic signage for the carpark at that time with no avail.  Trip Advisor however, returns hundreds of unhappy customers for the Holmes Mill site that have been scammed by the poor lack of signage.  See Exhibit - SEE Exhibits MM - HM2

15. I have also added photographs of the signage that is currently at the near to the entrance of the sites car park taken from across the road. - SEE Exhibits MM - HM3

16. The Claimant is therefore relying on a sign that is not located at the entrance of this site, and does not meet the benchmark for fair signage that was established in the case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis 

17.This is a direct breach of the IPC Code of Practice (Schedule 1, 'Entrance Signs'), which states that operators "should display entrance signs" where a car park has a defined entrance. Without clear entrance signs, a driver is not given the "Consideration Period" required by the Code to read and accept any terms. 

18.Therefore, no contract could have been formed. 

Claimant's Conduct 

19.  Additionally, the Claimant has advanced vague and defective Particulars of Claim that fail to disclose the alleged contractual terms, the conduct said to amount to a breach, or any cogent explanation of how a contract was formed. They have also inflated the claim with unlawful and unrecoverable additional sums, including a £70 “contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions” add‑on that has been repeatedly condemned in higher court authority as abusive and penal. The persistence in claiming such invented sums, contrary to POFA and contrary to binding authority, further demonstrates unreasonable conduct.

20.  Taken collectively, the pursuit of a claim with no legal basis, reliance on contradictory and misleading signage, failure to plead a coherent cause of action, and continued inflation of the claim with unlawful charges amount to conduct that “transcends mere negligence” and meets the high bar of unreasonableness established in CPR 27.14(2)(g). Should the Court agree, I seek my Litigant‑in‑Person costs for time reasonably spent researching, drafting and preparing my defence and witness evidence, in accordance with the applicable LiP rate.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

21.  In accordance with Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) of POFA 2012, the Claimant is prohibited from recovering from the keeper any sum greater than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they existed at the time the Notice to Driver was issued. The sum claimed in these proceedings exceeds that statutory maximum and is therefore unrecoverable from the keeper. (  )

22.  Explanatory Note 221 to Schedule 4 confirms that a creditor “may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued.”   Any added sums—such as “debt recovery fees”, “late fees”, or other invented add‑ons—are not “parking related charges” within the meaning of POFA. These additional amounts do not appear on signage, are not part of any contractual parking charge, and are created solely by third‑party debt recovery agents. POFA provides no legal basis to impose keeper liability for such DRA‑fabricated fees, even if (which is denied) the Claimant had otherwise complied with POFA’s conditions.

23.  To impose a PC, as well as a breach, the Claimant must show two things: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis UKSC67 (https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0280_judgment_c7f37dda32.pdf).

24.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate sum; it is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable, indeed it represents a penalty. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis (click here) , confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'.

25.  The binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores EWHC4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

26.  In addition to this, the ‘additional charges’ constitutes a double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as found by HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson G4QZ465V in which £60 had been added to a parking charge.

27.  Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Following the beforementioned exaggerated costs and charges, the court is invited to strike out or dismiss the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

Conclusion

28.  For all the reasons set out in this statement, the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules, fail to specify which contractual terms were allegedly breached, provide no details of the conduct said to amount to a breach, and give no explanation of how any contract was formed. This lack of essential information mirrors the defective pleadings repeatedly criticised and struck out in persuasive appeal authorities and has made it difficult to effectively and properly respond in one’s defence.

29. The Claimant has also failed to demonstrate that any contractual terms were prominently displayed, consistent, or capable of forming a binding agreement with the driver. Without clear, reliable, and contemporaneous evidence of the terms allegedly relied upon, no contract could have been accepted and no liability could arise.

30.  Moreover, the Claimant has neither identified the driver nor complied with the strict statutory requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 necessary to pursue the registered keeper. The Claimant’s attempt to imply keeper liability despite issuing a non‑POFA Notice to Keeper is both legally unsound and inconsistent with their own operating model at the time.

31.  The Claimant also seeks an inflated sum that includes unlawful and unrecoverable additions. These extra charges have been widely condemned in higher court decisions as disproportionate, penal, and an abuse of process. Such exaggeration further undermines the credibility and validity of the claim.

32. In light of the defective pleadings, non‑compliant notices, unreliable and misleading signage, and exaggerated charges, I respectfully submit that this claim is without merit. I therefore invite the court to strike out or dismiss the claim in its entirety.

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, 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:

SCHEDULE OF LOSSES

Loss of earnings / annual leave (Capped)

Claimant had to take one day of Annual Leave to attend the Court Hearing

- Statutory small‑claims cap: £95.00

Subtotal: £95.00

Printing Costs

Printing, paper and toner costs for documents.

- 120 pages × £0.15 per page = £18.00

Subtotal: £18.00

Travel Expenses

Roundtrip mileage costs for: 1) Site visit of Holmes Mill to inspect signage and take photographic evidence 2) Hand-deliver hard copy of Witness statement at Burnley County Court 3) Attending the Hearing at Burnley County Court

- 61 miles × £0.45 per mile = £27.45

Subtotal: £27.45

Litigant in Person Costs (CPR 27.14(2)(g) – If Awarded)

I reasonably estimate that I spent a minimum of 12 hours preparing my defence, researching the relevant law, examining the Claimant’s evidence, compiling exhibits, and drafting this witness statement. If the Court finds the Claimant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek the Litigant‑in‑Person rate of £19/hour.

- 12 hours research + preparation × £19/hour = £228.00

Subtotal (if awarded): £228.00

TOTAL (excluding LiP costs): £140.45

If unreasonable behaviour proven:

TOTAL (including LiP costs): £368.45

Coupon-mad

Very good.

TheSCHEDULE OF LOSSESis a separate page, signed & dated (but no statement of truth as it isn't part of the WS). Attach it separately.

Not_A_Hope

I am not sure you need para 4 in relation to not assuming the registered keeper was not the driver when you then name yourself as the driver in para 10.

Typo in para 15 ‘currently at the near to the entrance of the sites car park ……’

Canvasdesign

Thank you everyone. I will print it out and deliver it by hand the day before it is due. Thanks so much for the support.

Canvasdesign

So……. Just trying to work out what to do with Paras 4 and 10.

@Coupon-mad said to reference Edwards case, so I did in Para 4. But I can see that Para 10 is contradictory to 4.

Should I delete 4 and renumber? Or leave 4 in just as a reference point?

Coupon-mad

It's 'Edward' not Edwards but you need to choose re this point. Either:

• rely on the non-POFA argument and be ready to tell the judge how the NTK was non-compliant in wording (and hope not to be pressed by the judge or the other side's legal rep on whether you were driving), or
• admit to driving and drop Edward & POFA arguments, making your position simpler.

Gladstones cases do generally proceed to a hearing so decide what you are confident with. Your best points.