Parking ticket gone to court

theparkingtickethater

Hi,
I received 2 parking tickets 2 days apart in 2024. They started with the usual threatening letters and reminder letters, which then ended up with a letter from the court. I went through the online money claim process, and also done a directions questionnaire.
I received a letter that there will be a hearing on the claim in mid February 2026. I also received a letter from the parking companies solicitors that they will not be attending but they have sent a whole claimants witness statement and denied my defence in whole.
Can anyone guide me as to what my best next steps are please. Is it worth me attending, or even mediating?

Thank you.

Gr1pr

You must attend,  if they pay the hearing fee  ( what is the hearing fee deadline date. ?  ?

Have you submitted your WS plus Exhibits bundle yet ?  What is the WS deadline date

Name the private parking company and the lawyers involved too

Coupon-mad

theparkingtickethater said:

Hi,
I received 2 parking tickets 2 days apart in 2024. They started with the usual threatening letters and reminder letters, which then ended up with a letter from the court. I went through the online money claim process, and also done a directions questionnaire.
I received a letter that there will be a hearing on the claim in mid February 2026. I also received a letter from the parking companies solicitors that they will not be attending but they have sent a whole claimants witness statement and denied my defence in whole.
Can anyone guide me as to what my best next steps are please. Is it worth me attending, or even mediating?

But there's already a full Guide in the NEWBIES thread post 2 (all about court stage) including a red capitals heading: IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN.

Haven't you done your WS yet, as the hearing Order requires you to do, and as the NEWBIES FAQS thread explains with a whole list of recommended exhibits there for everyone at your stage.

They've done their WS... but you haven't?

That sounds it could be like a problem.

Are you in breach of the deadline on page 2 of the hearing Order.

What EXACT (verbatim copy please) defence did you put in?

theparkingtickethater

Coupon-mad said:

theparkingtickethater said:

Hi,
I received 2 parking tickets 2 days apart in 2024. They started with the usual threatening letters and reminder letters, which then ended up with a letter from the court. I went through the online money claim process, and also done a directions questionnaire.
I received a letter that there will be a hearing on the claim in mid February 2026. I also received a letter from the parking companies solicitors that they will not be attending but they have sent a whole claimants witness statement and denied my defence in whole.
Can anyone guide me as to what my best next steps are please. Is it worth me attending, or even mediating?

But there's already a full Guide in the NEWBIES thread post 2 (all about court stage) including a red capitals heading: IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN.

Haven't you done your WS yet, as the hearing Order requires you to do, and as the NEWBIES FAQS thread explains with a whole list of recommended exhibits there for everyone at your stage.

They've done their WS... but you haven't?

That sounds it could be like a problem.

Are you in breach of the deadline on page 2 of the hearing Order.

What EXACT (verbatim copy please) defence did you put in?

Gr1pr said:

You must attend,  if they pay the hearing fee  ( what is the hearing fee deadline date. ?  ?

Have you submitted your WS plus Exhibits bundle yet ?  What is the WS deadline date

Name the private parking company and the lawyers involved too

Hi, the hearing fee deadline date is 20 Jan. The company is Private Parking Solutions and the lawyers Gladstone Solicitors. I am yet to submit the WS, I have until the 15th Jan.

My defence is the following, 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is

denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this

Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in

their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability',

which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC

appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for

the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant draws to the attention of

the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton

and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of

typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this

meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal

firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice

Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking

firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following

persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.

E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would

indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part

16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim

as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon

which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this

case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers

pursuant to CPR 3.4.

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC

(like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held:

'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove hisor her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this

failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out

at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The

Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case,

allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However,

the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and

driver.

6. The defendant does not remember the day in question very well as it was months ago. The

defendant has made it clear that there was not any clear signage or anything of similar nature that

displayed any terms.

7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an

inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires

prominent signs and lines.

8. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is

a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is

fully distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

9. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is

denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

10. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This

Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing

that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

11. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or

archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts,

merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

12. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a

statutory Parking Code of Practice in February2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice. The

Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every

day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals

services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from

motorists."

13. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a

draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is

found

here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachme

nt_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

14. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true

minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

15. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating

legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by

small claims track rules.

16. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times

less' than the fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some

half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent. MoJ

statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing

default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-

serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow

+£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

17. It is denied that the added damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is

drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd

ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for

prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA)

held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of

template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

18. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court

called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4

preaction letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the

operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

19. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged. It will

replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.

It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing

'market failure'.

20. At last, the DLUHC's analysis overrides plainly wrong findings by Circuit Judges steered by

Counsel in weak appeal cases that the parking industry steamrollered through. In Vehicle Control

Services v Percy, HHJ Saffman took a diametrically opposed position to that taken by DJ

Hickinbottom, DJ Jackson (as Her Honour Judge Jackson then was), and other District Judges on

the North Eastern Circuit, including DJ Skalskyj-Reynolds and DJ Wright (Skipton) all of whom

have consistently dismissed extortionate added 'fees/damages'. District Judges deal with private

parking claims on a daily basis, whereas cases of this nature come before Circuit Judges

infrequently. The Judgments of HHJ Parkes in Britannia v Semark-Jullien, and HHJ Simpkiss in

One Parking Solution v Wilshaw were flawed. These supposedly persuasive judgments included

a universal failure to consider the court's duty under s71 of the CRA 2015 and factual errors. In

Wilshaw: a badly outdated reliance on 'ticket cases' which allowed poor signage to escape fair23. scrutiny and a wrong presumption that landowner authority 'is not required' (DVLA rules make it

mandatory). In Percy, HHJ Saffman made an incorrect assumption about pre-action costs and

even sought out the wrong Code of Practice of his own volition after the hearing, and used it to

inform his judgment.

21. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered

keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability'.

22. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages'

which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's

lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor

do they meet the signage requirements in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already

statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

CRA breaches

22. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether

a party raises it or not. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair

Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d

ata/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer

notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and

all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of

darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

24. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear

terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2

and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has

to be a finding of bad faith).

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

25. Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate

sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price

term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.

26. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a

'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing

directly from alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with

hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps'). This Claimant has failed

those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding

a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded;

and(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because

it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the

absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''.

27. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the DLUHC Code and these

clauses are supported by the BPA & IPC. In the official publication 'Parking Review' the IPC's

CEO observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one

person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by

definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t."

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

28. DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder

(ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to

form contracts at this site in their name. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to

litigate.

29. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had

a fair ADR existed. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to

properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals

in a woeful 4% of decided cases (ref: Annual Report). This consumer blame culture and

reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to

be replaced by the Government) should satisfy Judges that a fair appeal was never on offer.

Conclusion

30. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are

knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The July 2023 DLUHC IA

analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it.

The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing. The Defendant believes that it

is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be struck out.

31. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

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

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

32. Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of

Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs

after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small

claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the

normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track

serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a

party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

Statement of Truth

I believe 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

Coupon-mad

Ah good. A defence covering everything including Chan & Akande.

And good that your WS deadline hasn't passed yet. Same advice & links for you as I gave to this poster:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6615057/gladstones-2-claim-forms-in-2-months-first-was-discontinued-2nd-is-just-crazy-and-unfair-charges/p4

theparkingtickethater

I’m assuming my best case scenario is it gets dropped. What are my chances in court? Would the fact they are not attending work in my favour?
They have sent in the exhibit the layout of the car park and the signage. The reason for the case was not displaying parking permit, I was parked there quite late, it is a 24 hour car park.
I appreciate your help.

Coupon-mad

I’m assuming my best case scenario is it gets dropped.

Wrong.

You will have this hearing and the first thing you say (supported by your WS and exhibits) is "Judge, please strike out this claim per the persuasive authorities of Chan and Akande, where the latter involved Gladstones POC. Exactly the same as here."

That's your easy win if the judge agrees.

prowla

Coupon-mad said:

I’m assuming my best case scenario is it gets dropped.

Wrong.

You will have this hearing and the first thing you say (supported by your WS and exhibits) is "Judge, please strike out this claim per the persuasive authorities of Chan and Akande, where the latter involved Gladstones POC. Exactly the same as here."

That's your easy win if the judge agrees.

And the judge might take a dim view of them saying they can't be bothered to turn up.

Umkomaas

prowla said:

Coupon-mad said:

I’m assuming my best case scenario is it gets dropped.

Wrong.

You will have this hearing and the first thing you say (supported by your WS and exhibits) is "Judge, please strike out this claim per the persuasive authorities of Chan and Akande, where the latter involved Gladstones POC. Exactly the same as here."

That's your easy win if the judge agrees.

And the judge might take a dim view of them saying they can't be bothered to turn up.

It’s pretty much the standard position of all the legals snouting around the private parking scene.  But they often do send a ‘for hire’ advocate to represent them. 

theparkingtickethater

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81826012#Comment_81826012

Hi,

Appreciate everyone’s help. I’ve got my hearing in a couple of days. Just to double check, is this all I need to go in with?
I don’t want to turn up and be unprepared.

thank you very much

Umkomaas

Have you submitted your Witness Statement - I don’t see any confirmation that you’ve done this?

Have you checked with the allocated court that the hearing fee has been paid and the hearing is going ahead as scheduled?