Hi All, The court has confirmed that the hearing has been vacated so claim dropped! I have submitted a cost schedule for unreasonable behaviour to the court. thank you again for all the help and I wish you all the best! carry on with the amazing work!

Hi All, I wish I could personally know you to show you my appreciation of the support you guys gave me, thank you ever so much! I have submitted the WS to the court and to Gladdy's anyway just in case they are playing dirty tricks. I will wait for the court to notify me. Meanwhile, will be writing to the court, local MP, DVLA with complaints. will keep you informed until it's all over from the court.

Hi guys, here we go, Gladstones blinked first and dropped the claim! I received a letter 'Notice of Discontinuance' which has also been sent to the court too (it says). I guess they knew they didn't stand a chance and were bluffing all the way hoping that I would pay. I just want to say a massive thank you to you guys. You actually saved me £250. I would have paid by now if these forums wasn't here. I would have not have a clue how these PPC's are [causing problems] people without using the proper law. I am so grateful to you guys! thank you and carry on this amazing work! your time and efforts are not going to waste. I am guessing no further action is required from me? I don't need to submit anything to court? Should I do a counter claim for the time I wasted and the printing I done? I am also thinking to complain to IPC and DVLA as they miss-used my data under POFA. Thank you again guys,

Hi FTMDave, Apparently, CRP is not applicable in small claims. and how do I check planning permission. doesn't say anything on the sign them selves. thanks

Thanks, I was planning to get rid of these points. Also - just called the court, and they said that no court fee or application has been submitted but the claimant yet. the deadline was 5th March 4pm. and it said without the fee and application, it will be struck out. however, unless they have paid it via post which might take a bit to update court database. I am will submit the WS either way.

Hi All, All evidence are saved here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xvuq6aqx26c8nxn/AACo0JGAB7IfSe0WIIKGwajva?dl=0 I am looking to submit it tomorrow. any last minute check/feedback would be appreciated as ever. I made some further cuts to the WS following feedback from Pepipoo: In the County Court at Mayors and City of London Court Claim No. XXXXXXXX Between UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant) and XXXXXXXXX (Defendant) Witness statement of Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX 1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit MA01, Exhibit MA02 and so on. 2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise. 3. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all. 4. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg - XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by several family and friends. 5. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on XX.06.2017 at XX:XX on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on XX.07.2017 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit MA01. 6. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letter issued on XX.08.2017. See Exhibit MA02 7. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly use threatening language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me. See Exhibit MA03a, MA03b, and MA03c 8. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on XX.11.2017 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt. This letter again uses threatening language and assumptions such as ‘It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges’. This letter repeatedly states that I need to contact the client (UK CPM) and their agent (Debt Recovery Plus Limited) to pay the £160. See Exhibit MA04 9. Seven months later I received the ‘letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors. See Exhibit MA05 10. I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by the claimant and their agents because I believed they were spam. Also, these were not offence or fine from an Authority like a Council or Police so there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail. 11. The Notice to Keeper was issued on the XX.07.2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. This is a clear indication that the claimant has not obliged with the following: Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 12") - Schedule 4 12. It is denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the Notice to Keeper was issued 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. The letter was received by the keeper on day 20 following the parking charge (3 days after it was issued). Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. This paragraph clearly instructs the claimant that where no notice to the driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used), the notice to keeper must be served no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. I have attached a copy of the POFA 12 schedule 4 as Exhibit MA06 Failure to comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice 13. As the claimant is a member of the IPC, they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The terms and condition are clearly stated in Part A of the IPC Code of Practice. The claimant did not comply with the Part C point 5 of the code of practice where it says: ‘Part C, 5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must; (m) Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.’ I have attached a copy of the IPC Code of Practice as Exhibit MA07 The claimant also failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’ 14. I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs). As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for. Despite asking for it on subject access request on XX.11.2018 (See Exhibit MA08), the claimant failed to provide copies of the supposed contract 15. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’. 16. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence. 17. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures. 18. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs during and even worse to see at the night as there are no adequate light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit MA09 19. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit MA10 20. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road), that is affixed 12 foot high off the ground which can barely be noticeable or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit MA11 21. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but it was not possible to get within 10 feet of the sign due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier and at this distance the tiny, illegible whatever terms could not be read. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit MA12 22. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. 23. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges". (See Exhibit MA13) 24. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1. 25. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow the full costs recovery order due to the claimant’s unreasonable claim as per CPR 27.14.2(g). My costs schedule will be submitted separately, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signature Date

@renegadeimp @ericsbrother Thanks Guys, I will give it another shot today. I really appreciate your feedback

Hi Guys, thanks for the valuable feedback. and sorry that this awful.I really appreciate your time and willingness to help me. is this any progress? In the County Court at Mayors and City of London Court Claim No. XXXXXXXX Between UK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant) and XXXXXXXXX (Defendant) Witness statement of Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX 1. I am the defendant in this matter. Any evidence to my statement will be referred to the attached documents as Exhibit MA01, Exhibit MA02 and so on. 2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise. 3. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (Reg - XXXXXX) in question in this case. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle or that I was the driver. As this event has been resurrected from over a year ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. At the time of the charge, the car was used by a number of family and friends who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case. Without knowing who the driver was, I put the claimant to strict proof that any contract can exist between them and myself which they claim that it has been breached. 4. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed: 5. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on XX.06.2017 at XX:XX on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on XX.07.2017 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit MA01. 6. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letter issued on XX.08.2017. See Exhibit MA02 7. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly use threatening language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me. See Exhibit MA03 8. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on XX.11.2017 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt. This letter again uses threatening language and assumptions such as ‘It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges’. This letter repeatedly states that I need to contact the client (UK CPM) and their agent (Debt Recovery Plus Limited) to pay the £160. See Exhibit MA04 9. Seven months later I received the ‘letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors. See Exhibit MA05 10. I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by the claimant and their agents because I believed they were spam (this sort of [problem] had been exposed on Watchdog). Also, these were not offence or fine from an Authority like a Council or Police so there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail. 11. The Notice to Keeper was issued on the XX.07.2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. This is a clear indication that the claimant has not obliged with the following: Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 12") - Schedule 4 12. It is also denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the Notice to Keeper was issued 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. The letter was received by the keeper on day 20 following the parking charge (3 days after it was issued). Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. This paragraph clearly instructs the claimant that where no notice to the driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used), the notice to keeper must be served no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. I have attached a copy of the POFA 12 schedule 4 as Exhibit MA06 13. Under the POFA 12 schedule 4, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. The claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the POFA 12 schedule 4. Failure to comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice 14. As the claimant is a member of the IPC, they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The terms and condition are clearly stated in Part A of the IPC Code of Practice. The claimant did not comply with the Part C point 5 of the code of practice where it says: ‘Part C, 5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must; (m) Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.’ I have attached a copy of the IPC Code of Practice as Exhibit MA07 The claimant also failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’ 15. I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs). As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for. Despite asking for it on subject access request on XX.11.2018 (See Exhibit MA08), the claimant failed to provide copies of the supposed contract 16. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’. 17. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC as deviated in the following paragraphs with evidence. 18. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures. 19. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is difficult to notice the signs and even impossible to see at the night as there is no light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit MA09 20. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit MA10 21. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road), that is affixed 12 foot high off the ground which can barely be noticeable or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit MA11 22. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but it was not possible to get within 10 feet of the sign due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier and at this distance the tiny, illegible whatever terms could not be read. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit MA12 23. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case. 24. From my inspection of the signs as best I could, I found no mention of the alleged "debt collection charges", (See Exhibit MA13) which are anyway not my concern as I cannot be liable for more than the sum on the notice to keeper, even if the claimant had complied with POFA 2012 schedule 4, which is denied for the reasons set out above. 25. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1. 26. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as a registered keeper when the claimant has no such right and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. Statement of Truth 27. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signature Date

Hi Guys,Really sorry for sending this draft WS a bit late. I have been working on it all weekend. I honestly tried my best. I hope you guys don't think its too awful. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. thank you so much! _____________________________________In the County Court atMayors and City of London CourtClaim No. XXXXXXXXBetweenUK Car Park Management Limited (UK CPM) (Claimant)andXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)Witness statement of Mr XXXXXXX XXXXX, Address: XXXXXXXXXX, date of birth XXXXXXX1. I am the defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience. Any evidence to my statement will be referred tothe attached documents as Exhibit MA1, Exhibit MA2 and so on. 2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise. 3. I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver when the charge occurred. 4. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed: 4.1. I deny keeper liability so no cause for action against me. The claimant has failed to show locus standi so I do not believe they have a right to bring an action against me. 4.2. No enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen. 5. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle XXXXXX at the time of this parking incident, there is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from over a years ago, it is not possible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving. 6. I deny being the driver at the time of the supposed event and therefore puts UK CPM to strict proof that any contract can exist between them and myself which they claim has been breached. 7. At the time of the charge in 2017, the car was used by a number of family and friends who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case. 8. According to the notice to the keeper, the charges were for an ‘unauthorised parking’ on XX.06.2017 at XX:XX on 93-101 Greenfield Road, London. UK CPM issued a parking charge notice letter to me on XX.07.2017 as the registered keeper of the vehicle. No windscreen ticket in this case. Copy of the notice to the keeper is attached as Exhibit MA1. 9. The claimant then sent a follow on ‘formal demand’ letter issued on XX.08.2017. See Exhibit MA2 10. Following that, I received three ‘notice’ letters from a third-party organisation called ‘Debt Recovery Plus Limited’ for the sum of £160. The letters repeatedly state threatening the use of language such as ‘you owed’, ‘you haven’t paid’ and repeatedly threatened that court actions can be taken against me. See Exhibit MA3 11. I then received a letter from ‘Gladstones Solicitors’ on XX.11.2017 stating that they have been instructed by UK CPM in relation to this debt. This letter again uses threatening language and assumptions such as ‘It is our client's case that you are liable for these charges’. This letter repeatedly states that I need to contact the client (UK CPM) and their agent (Debt Recovery Plus Limited) however, it is obvious to notice that this letter isn’t from Gladstones Solicitors. It looks like the Debt Recovery Plus Limited using Gladstones letter headed paper and signature to threaten the keeper. The evidence is in the reference number on this letter, which is the same reference as the previous three letters from Debt Recover Plus Limited. See Exhibit MA4 12. Seven months later I received the ‘letter before claim’ from Gladstones Solicitors, this time with a different reference number on the letter than the previous one. See Exhibit MA5 13. I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by the claimant and their agents because I believed they were spam (this sort of [problem] had been exposed on Watchdog). Also, as I was not the driver and these were not offence or fine from an Authority like a Council or Police. so there was no reason or obligation upon a registered keeper to ‘appeal’ to what appeared to be junk mail. 14. The Notice to Keeper was issued on the XX.07.2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. This is a clear indication that the claimant has not obliged with the following:Failure to comply with the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice 15. As the claimant is a member of the IPC, they are required to subscribe to the AOS and adhere to this Code which defines the core standards necessary to ensure transparency and fairness. The terms and condition are clearly stated in Part A of the IPC Code of Practice. The claimant did not comply with the Part C point 5 of the code of practice where it says:‘5.1 The Notice to the Keeper must; (m) Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.’ 16. As the claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association, IPC, in order to pursue the keeper, the claimant must have compiled with POFA 12 Schedule 4.I have attached a copy of the IPC Code of Practice as Exhibit MA6Failure to comply with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA 12") - Schedule 4 17. It is also denied that the claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 12 schedule 4 9(5) as the Notice to Keeper was issued 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. The letter was received by the keeper on day 20 following the parking charge (3 days after it was issued). Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. This paragraph clearly instructs the claimant that where no notice to the driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used), the notice to keeper must be served no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. I have attached a copy of the POFA 12 schedule 4 as Exhibit MA7 18. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the POFA 12 schedule 4, there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right. 19. The claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the I was the driver. The claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the POFA 12 schedule 4. 20. I submit that, as a registered keeper who was not driving and who only received non-POFA 12 schedule 4 Notices to Keeper which were never my concern nor liability, these are better described as ‘irrelevant notices’. The claimant chose to issue non-POFA PCNs and was aware this risked a DVLA ban for misleading keepers re: liability for non-POFA PCNs. Now, this claimant seeks to bring me to Court as if I am liable for non-POFA PCNs! The claimant also failed to comply IPC Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’ 21. I was never shown the alleged signage contract photos (not even the original ‘PCNs’ showed the purported signs. As a registered keeper, I never saw the ‘contract’ they are trying to hold me liable for.22. The claimant stated in the particulars of claim that ‘the driver of the vehicle incurred the parking charges for breaching the terms of the parking’. 23. I have visited the location of the alleged parking charge and have found that the signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the IPC. 24. It is denied that there was any ‘'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA 12 schedule 4 and/or the existing easements, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. 25. Referring to the two pictures that were attached to the notice to the keeper, it is apparent that the vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park in the pictures. 26. The signage was deficient in number, distribution, tiny wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation. It is impossible to see the signs during the night as there is no light on that road or beside the signage. See Exhibit MA8 27. There was no signage at the entrance of the road that indicates to the driver that they are entering private land. See Exhibit MA9 28. Around twenty feet into the road, there is a sign on the left-hand side (facing sideways to the road), about 12 feet high which can barely be noticed or read even if one is standing underneath it let alone driving past it while focused on the road ahead. See Exhibit MA10 29. Following a close inspection of the road, three further signage were noticed along with other posters/advertisement on the wall, but they were impossible to get close to within 10 feet due to obstructions of cars, dust bins, bush, other obstacles, and a metal barrier. It is now apparent that it is not possible for a driver to notice these signs let along be able to read them. See Exhibit MA11 30. It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: 31. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract. See Exhibit MA12 32. The claimant has provided no evidence the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting/giving way to pedestrians or vehicles. The claimant has also failed to provide if any of these signs were up on the day of the ‘parking charge notice’ occurred and what physical conditional they were at. 33. The claimant has not provided any evidence of a contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK CPM had any authority to operate in the land per to the IPC Code of Practice Part B 1. - 1.1. 34. Conclusion – failure to comply with IPC Code of Practice and POFA 12 schedule 4 on inadequate signage and so no keeper liability. 35. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing the data and then suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay almost £250 including what was apparently an unproven £60 charge, allegedly incurred by another party (Debt Recover Plus LTD), if incurred at all. 36. I am no more liable now than I was then, but this unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report the claimant to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2017. I will also complain about the claimant to the DVLA and IPC for not complying with their Code of Practice. 37. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties - and has obtained default CCJs in the hundreds, despite never complying with the POFA 2012 schedule 4 and even bringing pre-POFA cases to the Courts, as here. 38. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as a registered keeper when the claimant has no such right and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.Statement of Truth 39. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.SignatureDate

Hey guys, The date for the court hearing has been confirmed. It's on the 26th of March 2019. Just want to say a massive thank you for all the help so far, I really appreciate your help. Without this forum, I probably would have gotten frightened and paid it by now. I am on the process of writing the witness statement which I will share with you shortly. Just to recap on what happened so far: • Parking Charge Notice issued on June 17 for £100 by UK CPM for ‘unauthorised parking’. The NTK was sent 17 days after the incident occurred • The formal demand letter was received on July 17 • Two DRP letters received on Sept 17 for £160 • Another DRP letter on Oct 17 • DRP sent a letter using Gladstone letter heading received on Nov 17 • Letter before claim received on June 18 • I didn't receive a PAP letter • County Court claim form received Set 18 for £249.67 • Acknowledgment of service done • Defence submitted (see above) • The direction of questionnaire completed with a request for an oral court hearing in oppose to gladstones’s paper hearing. • Received Acknowledgment of defence from the court • I sent a subject access request to UK CPM and they have replied with – a copy of the parking charge notice, formal demand letter, two pictures of the car and a screenshot of their system where it shows their activity i.e. PCN issued, a letter sent, referred to DRP etc. • I also sent Gladstones a CPR 31.14 Request and they have replied back saying CPR isn’t applicable in small claims • I have also asked them to erase my email address as I had put it in the direction questionnaire without realising. They have replied to say they have legitimate grounds to hold my email address. • Letter received from the court to say the case has been transferred to my local court • The general form of order received from the court • Notice of allocation to the small claims track (hearing) letter received. I have taken pictures of the car park as evidence where it has no signs at entry and no marking on the floor. Also, the signs are blocked by a barrier, so you can’t get very close to reading the small prints. I will share the draft witness statement soon to get your feedback. Thank you again for all your help

will do that now guys

Hi, I didn't give them my email or communicated with them at all. I did put my email in the moneyclaim website when I done the defence. So the court probably forwarded my email address to them. The form came through post so I am guessing it came from the court. somebody had already scribbled the claim no. in the form before sending it to me. I will complete it accordingly and ignore gladstones emails. thanks for your help.

Hi Guys, Thanks for your advice. I will ask for a court hearing and complete the direction of questionnaire as you advised me. thanks for all the support as ever

Hi Guys, Since I have posted the defence, I had the following: 1. Email one from Gladstone: 'Dear___ We write further to the attached correspondence. Please be aware CPR 31.14 is not applicable to small claims, the track this case will inevitably be allocated to however, in an effort to settle the matter please find attached evidence we currently have access to. Your Defence will be considered in due course.' The have attached the PCN letter, the Overdue PCN letter and 2 pictures which are identical take 4 seconds apart. 2. Email two from Gladstone: 'Dear____ UK Car Park Management Limited -v- _________ We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of our Client’s intention to proceed with the claim. Please find attached a copy of our Client’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which will be filed with the court upon their request. You will note we intend to request a special direction that the case be dealt with on the papers and without the need for an oral hearing This request is sought simply because the matter is in our Client’s opinion relatively straightforward and the costs incurred by both parties for attending an oral hearing would be disproportionate. You will note our Client has elected not to mediate. Its decision is not meant to be in any way obstructive and is based purely on experience, as mediation has rarely proven beneficial in these types of cases. Notwithstanding this, our Client would be happy to listen to any genuine payment proposals that you wish to put forward.' They attached N180 Directions questionnaire, REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DIRECTION PURSUANT TO PD27 which says the below: We kindly request that the Court send the N159 form (a redacted example of which is attached) to the Defendant for their consideration and, upon the Defendant consenting to the case being heard on the papers alone, the Judge makes the following direction; “The matter will be considered on paperwork without a hearing. The parties attendance is not required and the Judge will determine the matter based upon the documents and evidence supplied and any written representations received.” 3. I have also received a letter from court which says that it acknowledge receipt of my defence. 4. I have also received a letter which says 'notice of proposed allocation of the small claims track' and with it was a form called 'direction questionnaire' which is asking me complete by 16th Nov. Next step - I understand that I need to complete this direction form. Do you guys have any advice on how I should complete this form? There are couple of questions which I am not sure what to answer. Thanks for all your support so far.

Hi Guys, thanks for all your support so far. much appreciated! I have submitted the defence.

Thank you so much for all your help so far guys. greatly appreciated! 'It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because no keeper liability so no cause for action against the defendant. The claimant has failed to show locus standi so the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone. No enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen.' Just checking this is what you were referring to? thank you, I will do it through MCOL. I am aware of the Friday deadline but getting a bit anxious to get it in

Hi all, thanks for the valuable feedback as ever, I realised I went over the top at this stage. I was following other existing defence templates from MSE. Here's a shorter version as per to your feedback: IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE Claim No.: ######### Between UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant) -and- ############# (Defendant) _________________________________________________________________________ DEFENCE _________________________________________________________________________ I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons: 1. The defendant, Mr #########, residing at ############, at the time of the alleged infringement is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration marked ######## which is the subject of these proceedings. 2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. 3. No enforceable contract offered at the time by claimant so no cause for action can have arisen. 4. No keeper liability so no cause for action against the defendant 5. The claimant has failed to show locus standi so the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action against anyone. Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. ………………………………………………………. ……………………… (Defendant) (Date)

Hi Guys, here's my first stab at the defence. I need to submit this by 20th Oct so would love some feedback. thanks for all your help so far IN THE COUNTY COURT Claim No.: ######### Between UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED (Claimant) -and- ################## (Defendant) _________________________________________________________________________ DEFENCE STATEMENT _________________________________________________________________________ I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons: 1. It is admitted that the defendant, Mr ##########, residing at ############## at the time of the alleged infringement is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration marked ######## which is the subject of these proceedings .2. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. 3. No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right. Further, the defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter 4. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA") 4.1 Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that: 4.1.1 There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and 4.1.2 That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. 4.1.3 It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. 5. The defendant wrote to the claimant's solicitors on 25th September 2018 with a CPR 31.14 request. The claimant has failed to show locus standi by way of an assignment by the landowner to them to enter into contracts and to make civil claims in their own name. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Car Park Management Ltd, and no proof has been provided. 5.1 In the CPR 31.14 request, the defendant asked for: 5.1.1 Full particulars of the parking charges 5.1.2 Who the party was that contracted with UK Car Park Management Ltd 5.1.3 A full copy of the contract with the landholder that demonstrated that UK Car Park Management Ltd had their authority. 5.1.4 Proof of signage and planning permission for signage The claimant solicitor has not responded with any of the above information. 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. 5.2. The Defendant asks that the court orders Further and Better Particulars of Claim and asks leave to amend the Defence. 6. As 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). 6.1 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; “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.” 6.2 UK Car Park Management Ltd are 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. 6.3 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. 6.4 The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question 6.5 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, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. 7. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The vehicle was parked in an area where there are no marked bays and which did not have any adjacent sign with the full terms of the car park, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) which applied to VCS at the time. If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because: 7.1 The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. 7.2 The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate. 7.3 At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation; 7.4 The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and 7.5. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3 7.6 There is contradicting signage within the same car park which is placed in a more prominent and readable format. 7.7 It is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case: a) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) site/entrance signage - breach of the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum. b) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract. c) The signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. 8. The Claimant has provided no evidence the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting / giving way to pedestrians or vehicles. 8.1 It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 9.2.A as the claimant has not provided any evidence of the period of parking to which the notice relates 8.2 It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, POFA 9.5 as the Notice to Keeper was issued on the 10th July 2017, 17 days after the alleged parking charge date. Schedule 4 paragraphs 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver. (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g. ANPR is used) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. ‘5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.’ 9. 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 ” 9.1 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.’ 9.2 On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient 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. 9.3 I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant. 9.4 I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. 9.5 The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence; 9.5.1 The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt. 9.5.2 The Claimant has stated that a ‘parking charge’ was incurred. 9.5.3 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. 9.5.4 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. 9.6 The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the ‘parking charge’ has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. 9.6.1 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. 9.6.2 The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. 9.6.3 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. 10. 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 recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not. 10.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred £50 solicitor costs. 10.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. 10.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable. 10.4. The Claimant described the charge of £50.00 "legal representative’s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court. 10.5 It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance. 11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g). 12. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support. 13. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3). 14. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success. 15. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence. 16. I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''. Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. ……………………………………………………. ……………………… (Defendant) (Date)

Thank you ericsbrother so much for your message. I have done AOS and will send the CRP. Will you guys help me put a defence together? How can I post the letters and pictures on here? thank you

Thank you dx100uk I have done the AOS. I will send the CPR Today.

Thank you for the reply.

Nope, I didn't receive one

Thanks Honeybee13 I have now submitted the AOS. here's my answers: Name of the Claimant ? - UK Car Park Management Limited claimants Solicitors: Gladstone Solicitors Limited Date of issue – 19th Sept 2018 What is the claim for – 'The Driver of the vehicle registration ****** (The Vehicle) incurred the parking charge (s) on 23/06/2017 for breaching the terms of parking on the land at 93-101 Greenfield Road - London, Greater London, E1 1EJ. The defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the Vehicle. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS £160 for parking charges / Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £14.67 pursuant to s69 of the county court act 1984 at 8%pa, continuing to judgement at £0.04 per day. What is the value of the claim? - £249.67 Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? Uk Car Park Management limited Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? - Not sure what it is. I didn't receive anything else other than what's noted in my original post. So Far I noticed: They took 17 days to issue the NTK. DRP - Used Gladstone's letter headed paper to write to me UKCPM Trying to recover DRP costs I didn't get a PAP letter thank you

Hi, First of all, thank you for the support you all provide through this site. I have received a Parking Charge Notice from CPM (UK Car Park Management) for 'Unauthorised Parking' in a small car park. The bays are unmarked and the signs are barely readable attached high on the walls in small prints. I am the registered keeper but not the driver of the time. The issue date was last year June 17 and was for £100 or reduced to £60 if payed in 14 days. It was sent to me in post with two pictures of my car in the letter. The reason was 'unauthorised parking'. Since then, I received another letter called 'Formal Demand' roughly after 40 days of the first letter where it says to pay £100. Then I started receiving 3 DRP letters (2 in sept and 1 in Oct 17) asking to settle payment of £160. Following that, I received a letter from Gladstone Solicitors in Nov 17 asking me to settle payment of £160 and then another 'Letter before claim' in June 18. Taking advice from other forums, I decided ignore them and I never contacted or reply to any correspondence thinking that they will stop. Now (Sept 2018), I have received a Claim Form from County Court Business Centre, Northampton asking to pay CPM £174.67 + £25 court fee + £50 legal rep fee total of £249.67. I have kept all evidence of letters and pic of the car park including the sign they have up. I need advise on what to do next. I have read different threads and you tube videos and all saying this is fake court. The court logos are blurred out and looks like the letter has been copied. Is this a actual court? The letter contains moneyclaim.gov password. Please can you offer me advise om what to do next? I have 14 days to acknowledge of service then submit my defence. I can upload pics of letters and photos upon request. Please speak to me in layman's term as I don't fully understand the process. Questionnaire: 1 Date of the infringement - 23/06/2017 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 10/07/2017 3 Date received 13/07/2017 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] - not anywhere in the letter far as I can see 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - They took two pictures of my car and printed them in the letter 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - I did not respond at all 7 Who is the parking company? CPM 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - 93-101 Greenfield Road, London For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - BPA If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here - as mentioned above Thank you in advance