PCM (uk) claim, defence/counterclaim

Thanks for replies. Unfortunately I had no prior knowledge of private parking companies, and so had no idea I would get caught in this way. I therefore appealed initially (that's how they got my details), but didn't then follow through with POPLA. I only replied to the Gladstones letter before the LBC (the letter arrived a week into the 14 days not giving time to reply before they initiated small claims . I should point out that my permit was in the car but had fallen onto the floor - it was my first day parking at my property and the permits had been left by the seller, with nothing to fix it to the windscreen. Therefore I don't see how they can make out I could have entered into a contract if those involved in enforcement (The HA and PPC) hadn't personally given me the means to abide.

How's this looking for a defence so far?

Preliminary Matters.

(1) The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction
16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the
Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade
Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says:
1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where
applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover
parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not
necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

(2). The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as
there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars
of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are
known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service
have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour
is ‘Roboclaims’ and as such is against the public interest.

Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point:
1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of
claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example ‘Money
owed £5000’,
2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not
disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant

On the basis of the above, we request the court strike out the claim for want of a
cause of action.

Statement of Defence

It is admitted that the defendant was the driver at the time of the alleged incident.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.
(1) The title register provided to me from the Land Registry shows the parking space as part of my property that I own, and therefore it is deemed private to me and only I have the right to park there. I consider it an act of trespass for the Claimant to issue a charge against me and pursue it in such a manner.
(2) The Claimant has no authority to lay charge as it fetters my own rights made by virtue of the lease and title deeds that I hold to park in my space. The Claimant is hereby using my own property for their own business purposes without lawful authority to do so.
(3) The Defendant would like to point out similar recent cases of private parking companies pursing claims against residents which were overruled, to name but a few:
C7GF51J1 – PACE Recovery v Mr N 24/11/2016
C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham
C9GF8T04 NGPM v Mr S, Pontypridd CC, 2/12/2016

(4) I received a Letter before Claim letter from the Claimant’s solicitor dated the xxxxxx and it only arrived with me on xx/xx/xx. The Claimant, demanding I reply within 14 days, did not provide me with adequate time to reply, and is another example of disadvantaging the Defendant.

(5) The Claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim for the Defendant to be able to file a full defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged were broken have not been provided.
i) The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred. However the Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the
Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
ii) The Particulars states “parking charge(s)” which does not give any specific indication of on what basis the claim is brought, and is indicative of many generic cases being filed against residents in this manner.
iv) On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘Roboclaim’ particulars being
incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could
give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
v) On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were inefficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
struck out.

(6) There was no reasonable explanation regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was for, what the alleged contract was. Nor was there anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information. For example, when I wrote to the Claimant’s solicitors (Gladstones) on the xxxx and failed to receive a response to my query, which was to try to ascertain what exact terms were the basis for a charge in this specific case.


(7) In relation to the charge itself of £xxx…I find this charge to be unreasonable and disproportionate for attempting to enjoy the comforts of one’s home.
i) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount due has risen from £xx to £xx. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, which in this case was £xx.

(8) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist and the Claimant's increasingly demanding letters failed to evidence any contravention.
i) The signs are not immediately visible to a driver parking on my side of the car park.

(9) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established.
Even if the signs had been properly displayed and accessible, the Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £xx, which would be to agree that a breach of terms and conditions of a contract had taken place


(10) The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet ParkingEye would not have been able to recover any sum at all without 'agreement on the charge'. In the Beavis case, the £85 charge was held to be allowable to act as a disincentive in that case only, based upon very specific and unique facts in a 'complex' case involving the existence of a specific legitimate interest from the landowners regarding turnover of parking spaces and very clear, brief and prominent signs. In fact, the Supreme Court Judges observed that it would be unfair if drivers were to be penalised for parking slightly out of bay lines when causing no obstruction (this was specifically mentioned at the hearing and was clearly not something they would have allowed). Further, it was held at the Court of Appeal that a parking charge sum of £135 would fail the penalty rule. The authority for this is 'Parkingeye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 1338 (17 October 2012)'.

(11) The Defendant contends the signs in this case are illegible with terms hidden in small print, (such as how a permit needs to be displayed), unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.



Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.