Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

    • Cashville
    • By Cashville 10th Nov 18, 10:39 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Pcm county court claims , Gladstone's solicitors
    • #1
    • 10th Nov 18, 10:39 PM
    Pcm county court claims , Gladstone's solicitors 10th Nov 18 at 10:39 PM
    Please any good advice.

    I received a county court claims from Gladstone's solicitors acting on behalf of parking control management.
    The 2 PNC date back last year July and this year March and by my recollection I can't remember any PCN on my car or any letter from parking control management.

    The first letter I ever received was today from county court claims. I have responded to the court to give me more time to prepare my defence statement.

    I live on clarion housing association block with a parking permit, is so hard to find a parking space when my wife pick up the kids from school (three kids under 7), so sometimes she park in the yellow box infront of the block , most of the Resident park in the yellow box sometimes aswell because of limit parking spaces, my wife think PNC got issues for parking in yellow box infront of the housing block . There are about 50 flats only 14 parking spaces between us all.
    Is so stressful sometimes my wife have to park 500 yards away and walk back home with the kids in the dark .
    also my tenancy agreement says ,

    we can use common land for whatever we what to, more importantly,
    it does not say I will be charged £100 for parking my car on site,

    Do you think I have chance fighting this claims.?
    Please any advice would be great cuz I am thinking too much and it worries me.

    Sorry about my English.
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Nov 18, 10:45 PM
    • 13,685 Posts
    • 14,955 Thanks
    • #2
    • 10th Nov 18, 10:45 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Nov 18, 10:45 PM
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

    You say "I have responded to the court to give me more time to prepare my defence statement".

    Does that mean you have filed an Acknowledgement of Service?
    If so, when?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Nov 18, 10:47 PM
    • 68,662 Posts
    • 80,906 Thanks
    • #3
    • 10th Nov 18, 10:47 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Nov 18, 10:47 PM
    Do you think I have chance fighting this claims.?
    Yes, we see almost everyone here win!
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Cashville
    • By Cashville 11th Nov 18, 6:38 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    • #4
    • 11th Nov 18, 6:38 AM
    Yeah i have
    • #4
    • 11th Nov 18, 6:38 AM
    The issue date on the claim form is on the 5th November 2018 and I send Acknowledgement yesterday the 10th of November 2018.

    Please any advice I can put in my statement .
    • Cashville
    • By Cashville 11th Nov 18, 6:42 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    • #5
    • 11th Nov 18, 6:42 AM
    • #5
    • 11th Nov 18, 6:42 AM
    Please I welcome any advice, how to set up my defence statement. Any little happy will do.
    • Cashville
    • By Cashville 11th Nov 18, 7:26 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    • #6
    • 11th Nov 18, 7:26 AM
    • #6
    • 11th Nov 18, 7:26 AM
    @keithp are you there ?

    Any ideas or advice please
    • Cashville
    • By Cashville 11th Nov 18, 7:27 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    • #7
    • 11th Nov 18, 7:27 AM
    • #7
    • 11th Nov 18, 7:27 AM
    @ Coupon-mad

    Any help please?
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 11th Nov 18, 11:55 AM
    • 38,336 Posts
    • 22,299 Thanks
    • #8
    • 11th Nov 18, 11:55 AM
    • #8
    • 11th Nov 18, 11:55 AM
    This is a self help forum

    Use the resources in the newbies FAQ thread

    #2 advises on Court claims right through from the lbcca to the hearing

    Put up your draft defence here for comments before sending it
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Nov 18, 1:36 PM
    • 13,685 Posts
    • 14,955 Thanks
    • #9
    • 11th Nov 18, 1:36 PM
    • #9
    • 11th Nov 18, 1:36 PM
    The issue date on the claim form is on the 5th November 2018 and I send Acknowledgement yesterday the 10th of November 2018.
    Originally posted by Cashville
    With a Claim Issue Date of 5th November, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th December 2018 to file your Defence.

    Just about a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.

    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

    1) Print your Defence.
    2) Sign it and date it.
    3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to
    5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    • Cashville
    • By Cashville 15th Nov 18, 10:29 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Thanks I am doing my defence statement and I will post it here when am done
    • Cashville
    • By Cashville 15th Nov 18, 10:30 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Thanks I will do that...I am doing the statement
    • Cashville
    • By Cashville 15th Nov 18, 2:59 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Guy what do you think.... regarding the PNC , we never saw PNCon our car window and never received any letter from pcm or Gladstone until this county court claim came in. My wife is the one who use the car most but am name driver on the insurance as well and her recollection will be when she park the car in communal Area or way to offload the kids to the house because most of the time they are sleeping when she does school pick up.



    Parking Control Management (UK) Limited (Claimant)


    XXXXX (Defendant)

    Statement of Defence

    I am Miss xxxx defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
    authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
    incident. It should be noted there is 1 other named driver on the insurance policy.

    (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 that 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.

    1.1 . The Defendant ! block of flats called Becket close managed by Clarion Housing. The Defendant is a resident of Clarion Housing.

    (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 the claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

    (3). The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.
    3.1. No Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant and no initial information was sent to
    the Defendant.

    3.2. No knowledge about this 2 PNC or letter send to the Defendant until today received county court claims
    3.3. I'd refer the court to Para 4 on non-compliance and sanction, and I'd also point out
    that there can be no reasonable excuse for the Claimant's failure to follow the
    Pre-action Conduct process.

    (4). A contract was formed as the signs used by this claimant cannot have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs are insufficient in terms of their distribution and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver.

    Schedule E of the IPC Code of Practice states ‘If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. You will need to ensure all signs are readable during the hours of enforcement as they form the legal basis of any charge.

    ‘Such signs must; be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site.’

    The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

    (5). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
    5.1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
    5.2. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant
    must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to
    hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.
    5.3. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered Keeper was unaware of the 2 PCNs until today received county court claims
    and the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including ‘adequate notice’ of the £100 charge and the prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/mandatory wording.

    (6) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
    defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
    have not been provided.

    6.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    6.2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
    6.3. 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.

    (7). The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action
    which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states “parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.

    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
    was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
    exchange of information.

    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    (8). On the 20th September 2016 a 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.’

    (9). On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
    similar parking charge particulars of claim were efficient 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.

    (10). The defendant wrote to the claimant on 8th of November 2018 asking for:
    a) Full particulars of the parking charges
    b) Who the party was that contracted with PCM (UK) Ltd.
    c) The full legal identity of the landowner
    d) A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that PCM (UK) Ltd. had
    their authority.
    e) If the charges were based on damages for breach of contract and if so to provide
    justification of this sum
    f) If the charge was based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking
    and If so to provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
    g) To provide a copy of the signs that PCM (UK) Ltd. can evidence were on site and which
    contended formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all
    photographs taken of the vehicle in question.

    The claimant has not responded.

    (11) The Claimant has not complied with the pre-court protocol.

    (12). Withholding any relevant photos of the car, particularly the windscreen and
    dashboard, and the signage terms, despite being asked for by the Defendant at the
    outset, is against the SRA code as well as contrary to the ‘overriding objective’ in the
    pre action protocol.

    As Gladstones are a firm of solicitors whose Directors also run the IPC Trade Body
    and deal with private parking issues every single day of the week there can be no
    excuse for these omissions.

    The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and
    asks leave to amend the Defence.

    (13). PCM (UK) Ltd. is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    13.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
    landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    13.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
    vehicle parking at the location in question
    13.3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
    specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
    agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

    (14.) 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 has climbed from £100
    to £428. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an
    attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    14. 1. 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.

    (15). The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
    15.1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
    difficult to read or see
    15.2. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
    large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
    this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

    (16) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
    between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    (17). The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that
    further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the
    debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
    calling round like bailiffs)
    17.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs.
    17.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs
    to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
    17.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    17.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal fees" not "contractual costs".
    CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    (18). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished
    from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free
    parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex
    contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the
    unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. Whilst the Claimant withheld any
    photos of the signs on site, the Defendant contends these are illegible with terms
    hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract
    Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.

    (19). Primacy of contract applies, and the lease gives residents the right to park which cannot be unilaterally overridden by a third party.
    (20). There is a large body of case law which establishes this. In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 it was found the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents ,nor charge for them, or this would constitute a matter of ‘derogation from grant’ which the courts could not support.

    (21). In Pace v Mr Noor [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

    (22) jopson v homeguard

    In June 2015, Laura jopson was unloading furniture and parked directly in front of the communal entrance to the flats on wolverton park road, rather than use her designated parking space because it was too far away.

    The case rested both the fat that under the terms of the lease, Laura jopson (a resident) had a right of way to the block’s entrance which new parking regulations disregarded: and that the new parking regulations imposed by the parking company did not come to Laura’s attention.

    The judge found that under the terms of the lease, the resident and her fellow tenants ( as well as people making deliveries or those dropping off children or disabled passengers) have a right of way to the block’s entrance and that the parking company’s “regulations” disregarded these rights.

    (24). In Pace v Mr Noor [2016] C7GF51J1, PACE came back again, this time claiming that clause 6.3 of the lease allowed the terms of the lease to be varied. The judge ruled that this clause required a month's notice to be given, and as this had not occurred, the point was moot. The claim, and 7 others relying on this, were dismissed.

    (25). If the lease does not give primacy of contract, then the contract is established at the time the permits are given to the residents by the management. The signage is there only to create contracts with non-residents. This contract cannot be unilaterally altered.

    (26). The above point was recently tested in the County Court at High Wycombe, in the case of Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), where District Judge Glen dismissed all three claims, stating in his judgment that:

    (27). “If the notice had said no more than if you park on roadway this you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach. The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway. It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway. All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

    In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,716Posts Today

6,583Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @AskJames: Someone quickly marry me so I can justify buying this. I do. "Tesco is selling a five tier wedding cake made of cheese - an?

  • Today's FRIDAY twitter poll: Draconian & absurd new laws by May/Corbyn/EU/Trump/Putin (pick ur own scapegoat) dicta?

  • Now come on that's a bit unfair!!!!! I could've done a handstand (well headstand) first if you'd asked! Sheesh!

  • Follow Martin