-
Fair point regarding "technical points". I meant (but didnt articulate) that when I said that I was thinking of the technical points relating to the process of the claim itself, i.e. defective PoC, attempting to cure by WS, etc.
I agree with you on the PoC. The deficiencies are identical to Chan and Akande and I was surprised that he just cut straight through that argument and dismissed it.
Thanks again and all the best.
-
Thank you for the court report/feedback. I would beg to differ with your point that this was not won on a technical point. PoFA failure is a technical point and it worked.
Every judge has their own views on different persuasive cases. As they are not 'binding' because they are not appellate decisions form a higher court, they are not obliged to be 'persuaded' by them. It's what we call 'Judge Bingo'. Some are very good and understand the way these firms take advantage of the judicial system and flood it with claims. Others are well aware of their methods and attempted abuse of the system.
In this case and any filed by Gladstone's, they never comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). If you read their PoC, there is not even a mention of a cause of action. Never mind. The main take from this is that you won your case. Of the few that ever get as far as an actual hearing in front of a judge, most are won.
-
Case dismissed, many thanks once again for the help, especially @b789.
£111 costs awarded (£95 for the time off work plus small amounts for parking and mileage, less than a tenner each). He did not award the litigant-in-person time as he did not feel the parking company were unfair in bringing the claim and also didnt find that they had abused the process or broken rules.
The judge was pleasant and in my opinion was looking for a valid reason to dismiss it. Luckily, he found one. I also think the fact I showed up and the other side didn't probably looked good and set a decent impression from the start. I think he also appreciated the concise and clearly set out arguments, big thanks to @b789 for those.
The judge picked out the point in my witness statement about the "period of parking" needing a clearly stated beginning and end time, therefore not PoFA compliant. In other words, the judge effectively upheld my appeal that was bounced out of the kangaroo court that is the IAS.
Some important points to note. I asked the judge, after he had made his judgement, if he felt there was merit in the defective PoC argument, and he said he wouldn't have been inclined to strike out the claim on the basis given in my Defence + WS, given that there is a character limit on the PoC box on the MCOL form and the fact I clearly understood what the case was because I had been able to appeal in a very lucid manner to the IAS. I was a little surprised by this as the explanation he gave disagreed directly with the findings in Chan and Akande. I wasn't going to start arguing this as I had already won ;D
He also said that he was not inclined to throw out the WS on grounds of no LSA 2007 authority/exemption. He said that it was acceptable for such people to write witness statements etc as long as they are not the ones signing of the actual claims forms etc. He did acknowledge however that he would take into consideration the "weighting" of the evidence, i.e. the fact that the person writing their witness statement was not "there" whereas I was, and the fact that I bothered to turn up and could questioned further on my evidence whereas they did not turn up to the hearing.
I'm glad that I didn't just rely on technical and abuse of process points because, in the end, despite there being multiple technical arguments made, I won this case based on good old fashioned failure of the parking company to comply with PoFA when they compiled the NTK.
He also said that they see a lot of parking claims come through their court and the parking companies win a lot of them (he didn't say "most", he said "a lot"). I'm not sure what the reasons for that are, it might be that a lot of the ones that lose are winnable but are poorly argued, or it might be that a lot of them are not winnable. I wouldn't like to speculate but I would urge people who intend to appeal and perhaps fight a private parking claim to post the details on this forum ASAP and get advice on what your winning points may be BEFORE the discount period elapses. At least that way, if you are not convinced yours is a winner or decide you don't have the stomach to take this all the way to court and perhaps lose £250, then at least you can pay the discounted £40-60 rather than the inflated £70-100. I have fought 80% of my parking tickets using advice from these forums and have not lost one yet, but I have paid 20% of them (2 private, 1 council) because I either didn't have the mental and nervous capacity for a fight at that time (due to life events) or, in the case of the council one, because it would have been hard to win. Pick your battles but equally don't be afraid to fight back and you don't have to accept being bullied by these vultures.
-
What you can usually hand up on the day (small-claims, judge’s discretion):
• Hearing note (1 page) – submissions, not evidence.
• Authorities extracts (1–2 pages) – submissions, not evidence.
• Costs schedule (1 page) – routinely accepted at the end.
• Clean copies of documents already filed/served (PoC, Defence, their 27.9 letter, their WS/skeleton).
What to take tomorrow (lean, paper-clip, 2–3 copies):
1. Your Defence and your WS.
2. PoC page (with the missing cause of action highlighted).
3. Claimant’s WS, their CPR 27.9 non-attendance letter, and their skeleton.
4. One-page hearing note (the threshold point + costs ask).
5. One-page costs schedule (fixed items; add 27.14(2)(g) one-liner).
6. Authorities extracts (optional, very short):
– CEA 1995 s.4 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/38?utm_source=chatgpt.com) (whole section, 1 page).
– PD32 paras 17–18 (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part32/pd_part32?utm_source=chatgpt.com) (1 page).
– Brennan paras 27–28 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=m2yfckih&dl=0) (PoFA “period of parking”), Chan (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=qsdkqwot&dl=0)/Akande (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=czcu5k8z&dl=0) short extracts, and a single page from Mazur (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/avemaaeatg8znf97gix8m/Mazur-and-Ors-v-CRS-LLP.pdf?rlkey=ijv0ibxmz7ok6vrgwcvfdqpob&st=dpuor5jo&dl=0) (supervision ≠ authorisation). If you can’t print: skip—these are supporting, not essential.
How to use that in court:
• Opening (20s):
“PoC plead no cause of action. Parties are confined to pleadings. The claimant tries to cure via WS/skeleton and isn’t attending; that is paralegal-compiled hearsay of limited weight (CEA s.4; PD32). I invite strike-out/dismissal. Costs: fixed + 27.14(2)(g).”
• If asked factual questions, answer briefly, then pivot back to the pleading defect.
• If the judge asks for the law, hand up your single-page extracts.
• If anyone turns up who isn’t clearly authorised, ask them to confirm rights of audience at the outset.
-
Use the “conduct of litigation” point to (1) demand clarity now, (2) challenge any unauthorised advocate on the day, and (3) support 27.14(2)(g) costs for unreasonable conduct.
B) Email to Gladstones now (copy/paste and fill brackets)
I was not monitoring over the weekend. I have done this this morning, by changing it to demand clarity by 4pm tomorrow, which is the day before the hearing. Bearing in mind they have just entered a skeleton argument today.
Do I need a transcript of Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 with me on the day and are you able to point out the specific section(s) of it that I need to highlight for the court?
Any further thoughts in light of the below, which the Claimant has just served this morning? One thing to note is that they say I am inconsistent because I denied being the driver but have given an account of events. Neither of those things are true, I've never denied being the driver, just never admitted it, and I have not given an account of events I have merely pointed out that there is not a valid claim.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/szlnxmz6zrest4tasovex/Claimant-Skeleton-Argument.pdf?rlkey=dji0vfn5tw4v3e3kz2njg8ke5&st=wbfpu3yw&dl=0
-
The judge is not there to probe you. Their job is to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether the claimant has proved a debt. The claimant carries the burden of proof. If the Particulars of Claim plead no cause of action, there is nothing to answer and a witness statement cannot cure the defect.
I have just gone back through your case. Gladstone's have made a very serious admission that the person conducting the litigation is not a regulated person who is authorised to do so. This is a breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA) and is a criminal offence.
Gemma Hankin, the legal assistant that made the WS for the claimant has stated, under a Statement of Truth, as follows:
I, Gemma Hankin of Gladstones Solicitors Limited, Unit B, 210, Cygnet Court, Centre Park, Warrington,
WAI IPP, will say as follows;
INTRODUCTION
1 . I am a Legal Assistant, in the employment of Gladstones Solicitors Limited, who act for the
Claimant in this matter. I have conduct of this action, subject to the supervision of my principal.
The matters to which I refer within this witness statement are within my own knowledge, or based
on information provided to me by my client within the course of my instruction, save where
expressly stated to the contrary. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on
their behalf
A) What to keep in mind
Your win still turns on: no pleaded cause of action; WS cannot cure; non-attendance → limited weight. Don’t let this issue distract from that.
Use the “conduct of litigation” point to (1) demand clarity now, (2) challenge any unauthorised advocate on the day, and (3) support 27.14(2)(g) costs for unreasonable conduct.
B) Email to Gladstones now (copy/paste and fill brackets)
Subject: M4GF9310 – Conduct of litigation and rights of audience
Dear Sirs,
Claim: HX Car Park Management Ltd v George Linnane (M4GF9310)
Hearing: [date], Bristol County Court
Your witness statement signed by Ms Gemma Hankin (“Legal Assistant”) states, under a Statement of Truth, that she “has conduct of this action”, subject to supervision.
Conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 (s.12, Sch.2). Only an authorised person (or a person lawfully exempt) may carry out reserved legal activities. Supervision does not confer authorisation.
By 4pm on [date – 3 working days from now], confirm:
(a) Whether Ms Hankin is an authorised person entitled to conduct litigation, with regulator and authorisation number; or
(b) If she is not authorised, the specific statutory exemption relied upon permitting her to conduct litigation; and
(c) The name and SRA number of the supervising solicitor who in fact has conduct of this action, with confirmation that all reserved activities have been and will be carried out only by an authorised or lawfully exempt person.
Also confirm the identity and status of any representative who will appear at the hearing and that they will have rights of audience. If an agency advocate is instructed, provide their name and basis of audience no later than 48 hours before the hearing.
Failing satisfactory confirmation, I will (i) place this correspondence before the Court on issues of propriety and weight; and (ii) refer the matter to the SRA on the basis of unauthorised reserved legal activities contrary to the Legal Services Act 2007 (including s.14).
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Defendant
For the court on the day, bring this ½ page note (make 3 copies, 1 for the judge, 1 for the claimants rep and 1 for yourself)
Claim No: M4GF9310 – Note on conduct of litigation
The claimant’s WS (Gemma Hankin, Legal Assistant) states she “has conduct of this action” and signs under a Statement of Truth. Conduct of litigation is a reserved activity (Legal Services Act 2007, s.12 & Sch.2). A non-authorised employee cannot conduct litigation merely by being supervised; see Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
I do not seek to expand my case; the dispositive point remains: the Particulars of Claim plead no cause of action and the claimant seeks to cure via witness evidence.
I invite strike out or dismissal. Under CEA 1995 s.4, the claimant’s non-attending legal assistant’s witness statement is hearsay; it was prepared for litigation long after the event, the maker is not available for cross-examination, and there are reliability concerns. It also fails to comply with PD32 (including the first-person and source-identification requirements at paras 17–18). It should therefore carry little, if any, weight.
I also seek costs, including under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.
-
What makes it work on the day is the top-line threshold point first: “No pleaded cause of action (CPR 16.4(1)(a)) → nothing to answer → strike-out/dismiss.”
Confined to pleadings: “WS cannot amend/cure PoC; ambush material (e.g. alleged breach details) must be ignored”.
Non-attendance & hearsay: “Lawyer-authored hearsay from a non-attending paralegal → very little weight”.
Looks like this going to court, unless there is a very late discontinuance, which I can't see happening as I imagine the claimant will just leave it now to see if I **** up by failing to turn up to court or if indeed just take a chance on the judge ruling in their favour.
So I wonder if anyone has any tips on how I need to argue this in court if the judge wants to probe it a bit. Obviously I wont lie, if they ask if I parked it there I'll say yes I did and due to unclear signage I didn't know I was on such a time limit but now i do know I won't park there again.
What if the judge decides they do want to dig into the claimant's witness statement and starts firing questions at me?
-
They should do. However, you may want to read those extracts and just highlight the significant bits within them.
Also, use the court header info for the document and number each page so you can refer to them if necessary.
-
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ghf98k73ivw94l25zb7oo/AUTHORITIES-CASE-CITATIONS.docx?rlkey=aeqkyw76fbvc7xfqdakkqb1e3&st=1e9013ua&dl=0
[/quote]
Thanks, hopefully this is entirely correct now then
-
Here is the Beavis transcript I am referring to, it is the only reference to this case I could find on the Bailii site.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html
That's one of the appeals, you need the Supreme Court judgement:
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html (https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html)
-
Bailii (https://www.bailii.org) website.
Excellent resource, thanks.
When looking at the Beavis transcript, the paragraph numbers do not seem to match your suggestions. Please are you able to confirm that I have included the correct ones in my Authorities document? It would be helpful if you could check this for all 3 cases.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ghf98k73ivw94l25zb7oo/AUTHORITIES-CASE-CITATIONS.docx?rlkey=aeqkyw76fbvc7xfqdakkqb1e3&st=1e9013ua&dl=0
Here is the Beavis transcript I am referring to, it is the only reference to this case I could find on the Bailii site.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/402.html
-
Beavis/Spurling/Interfoto: no need to serve with the WS; either bring 1–2 page extracts on the day or email them shortly before the hearing.
Brennan (unreported county court appeal): do serve the transcript (with paras 27–28 highlighted) by the evidence deadline (with your WS or as a short “authorities (extracts)” PDF) so the judge has it. If you already filed it with the Defence, it’s still sensible to re-serve it with your WS or just before the hearing for ease.
-
For the "persuasive" county court appellate case law, I have copies of the commonly used cases and I provide them from my DropBox account. For the "binding" cases tha are published, you can use the Bailii (https://www.bailii.org) website.
Here is the link to the Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw case:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1956/3.html
Spurling v Bradshaw says that the harsher or more unusual a term is, the louder you must shout about it to make it part of the deal. Denning LJ’s “red hand rule” means a hefty charge for breach can’t be tucked away in small print; it must be clearly and prominently brought to the customer’s attention before the contract is formed. So if the claimant didn’t make any charge/penalty obvious at the point of contracting (e.g., on clear, prominent signage), that term was never incorporated and they can’t rely on it.
For Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1987/6.html
Interfoto says that if a contract hides an unusually harsh term (like a very high fee), the party relying on it must give clear, upfront notice before the deal is made. In that case, a steep “holding fee” was buried on a delivery note; the court said it wasn’t incorporated and only allowed a reasonable sum for actual loss. Relevance: if the claimant didn’t clearly and prominently flag any penalty/charge at the point of contracting, Interfoto supports that the clause isn’t part of the bargain; at best they may recover a reasonable loss, not a concealed penalty.
-
• CNBC confirmation that your Defence was served.
• The PoC page (highlight the absence of a cause of action).
Thanks again. Do these need serving with the WS?
Also, how are you getting hold of these court transcripts? I can't find a single one of them. If you have them to hand they would be very much appreciated.
• ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
• J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (CA)
• Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433 (CA)
-
Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1b9rpna57dutsetdgwi60/Brennan-v-Premier-Parking-Plymouth-CC-Judgment-20230821-V-Final_-14.pdf?rlkey=203u1fav6fve811lz8cm8wpwx&st=kw75u61i&dl=0)
-
Brennan v Premier Parking / PPS (2023)).
Because this isn’t a well-known reported authority, include the actual transcript (with the key paras highlighted) in your authorities bundle and serve it (or exhibit it) in advance if you can. That one is worth filing/serving.
Do you know where I can get a copy of this transcript? I'm struggling to find one on this forum or on google. It's mentioned all over the place but no link
-
The CNBC has had nothing more to do with your case once it was transferred to your local county court at Bristol. You don't have to send anything by post. Just send your WS as a PDF attachment to a single email addressed to the court at e-filing.bristol.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and CC Gladstones at enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk.
Sending by email you have proof of having sent it and it is instantaneous, no trees are harmed and you don't have to pay for a useless signed for delivery or trudge out to the post office. Why on earth would anyone want to send any documents by post these days?
As for the referenced cases, you don’t have to file full transcripts with your WS on the small-claims track. Judges know Beavis, and the other two are classic authorities. What matters is that you (a) cite them correctly, and (b) have short, highlighted extracts ready.
Here’s the practical approach that works well:
1. Don’t attach bulky cases to your WS.
Just give neutral citations in the WS:
• ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67
• J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (CA)
• Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1989] QB 433 (CA)
2. Bring (or email shortly before the hearing) a tiny “authorities bundle” of extracts, not the whole judgments:
• Beavis: the passages on prominent signage/clarity and legitimate interest (e.g. around paras 90–91 and ~108).
Spurling v Bradshaw: the “red hand rule” passage.
• Interfoto: the passage on onerous/unusual terms requiring special notice.
Keep each to 1–2 pages with the key lines highlighted. Two spare copies (court + opponent) are sufficient.
3. Exception — unreported/persuasive county appeal (e.g. Brennan v Premier Parking / PPS (2023)).
Because this isn’t a well-known reported authority, include the actual transcript (with the key paras highlighted) in your authorities bundle and serve it (or exhibit it) in advance if you can. That one is worth filing/serving.
4. Timing/Service.
• If the directions say “file/serve all documents on which you intend to rely by X days before the hearing”, it’s safest to email your short authorities bundle (extracts) by that same date.
• If directions are silent, most DJs are content for you to hand up the extracts on the day. Serving them 24–48 hours before by email is courteous and avoids any complaint.
5. Format.
• One cover page “Authorities (Extracts Only)”; list the cases with neutral citations and page/paragraph pins.
• Then tabs A–C with the short extracts, highlighted. Single-sided, paginated, stapled—keep it lean.
Bottom line:
• Beavis/Spurling/Interfoto — no need to swamp the court with full texts; bring short extracts.
• Brennan (and similar county-appeal transcripts) — do include and serve the transcript (highlight paras 27–28 re “period of parking”).
• Your WS stays short; your extracts do the talking if the judge wants to see them.
-
A one-page typed schedule is fine: heading with case number/parties/hearing date → one-line basis for costs → short itemised list → total → sign/date.
Amazing, thanks very much for your help with this.
I notice the WS cites ParkingEye v Beavis, Spurling v Bradshaw and Interfoto v Stiletto. Do transcripts of these need to be sent to the Court and the Claimant along with the WS when I serve it?
Also, do you happen to know the correct email address to use to serve a WS on CNBC these days? If I had to guess from the following information I would expect it to be ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk but Witness Statements are not specifically listed anywhere.
https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/civil-national-business-centre-cnbc
I guess that to serve the WS on the Claimant, I sent it to the postal address given on the last document (Claimant's WS) that they sent me?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nur4mycwydlrghjdia8ji/Witness-statement-Claimant.pdf?rlkey=hzfmndd1n9jfz9hllvy33rpqw&st=7bkya0ad&dl=0
-
There’s no prescribed form for small-claims costs. You don’t need an N260. A one-page typed schedule is fine: heading with case number/parties/hearing date → one-line basis for costs → short itemised list → total → sign/date.
What you can usually claim on the small-claims track
• Loss of earnings/loss of leave for attending the hearing: capped at £95 per day per person (you + any witness). Bring a wage slip/letter or a short note explaining how the figure is derived.
• Travel to/from the hearing: “expenses reasonably incurred” (train/bus fares, or mileage if you drove). Courts often accept mileage at HMRC rates (currently 45p/mile) as a reasonable measure; bring a map printout or mileage note. Keep tickets/receipts where possible.
• Parking: reasonable, evidenced if you can. If you only get the ticket on the day, hand it up or note the amount on the schedule and show the ticket to the judge.
• Court fees: if you paid any (usually N/A for a defendant).
• Anything else (postage/printing/time spent, etc.) is only recoverable if the judge finds unreasonable behaviour and makes an order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). If that applies, you can ask for (i) your reasonable disbursements (postage/printing) and (ii) time as a litigant in person at £19/hour with a brief time log.
Do you have to serve it in advance?
• Not required by the Rules for small claims. Many judges are content with a schedule handed up on the day. As a courtesy, you can email/serve it 24 hours before so no one is surprised.
• You don’t need to send your costs schedule, PoC copy, or CNBC confirmation to the court with your WS. File/serve the WS by the deadline; bring 2–3 copies of the costs schedule to the hearing (one for the judge, one for the other side).
“One-liner” you can put at the top (27.14(2)(g))
Costs sought under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct: defective PoC (no pleaded cause of action), ambush via WS, and non-attendance; plus fixed small-claims costs (loss of earnings, travel, parking).
Simple one-page template (copy/paste and fill in)
Claim No: [ ]
Parties: [Claimant] v [Defendant]
Hearing: [date], [court]
Defendant’s Schedule of Costs (Small Claims Track)
Basis:
Fixed small-claims costs (CPR 27.14(2)(c)–(f)) and, given the Claimant’s unreasonable conduct (CPR 27.14(2)(g): no pleaded cause of action; attempt to cure at WS stage; non-attendance), additional disbursements and LiP time.
Items:
1) Loss of earnings/leave for attending hearing (capped) .......... £[up to 95.00]
Basis: [half day/full day off work]. Evidence: [wage slip/letter].
2) Travel to/from court ............................................ £[ ]
Basis: [train/bus fares attached] OR [x miles @ 45p/mile = £ ].
3) Parking at court (receipt attached / shown) ..................... £[ ]
4) Court fees paid (if any) ........................................ £[ ]
(Only if 27.14(2)(g) found:)
5) Postage/printing ................................................ £[ ]
6) Litigant-in-person time (CPR 46.5/PD 46 §3.4) ................... £[ ]
Basis: [e.g., 3.0 hours @ £19/hr = £57]; brief log: [date – task – time].
TOTAL ................................................................ £[ ]
Signed: _____________________ Date: ________________
Reasonableness notes:
• Lost earnings cap is hard-capped at £95/day. You cannot claim more than that on small claims even if your actual loss is higher.
• Mileage isn’t set by the CPR, but judges commonly accept the HMRC 45p/mile rate as a reasonable proxy for motoring costs.
• LiP time (£19/hr) is not automatic on small claims. It only comes in via 27.14(2)(g) if the judge finds the claimant’s conduct unreasonable. Keep any claim for time modest and well-logged.
-
Here are some copy-paste one-liners you can use on the costs sheet:
Thank you.
Is there an eccapted format for this statement of costs or do I lterally just need to choose a one liner, put it on a piece of paper and then follow it with a list of costs?
I have googled it but what comes up tends to be official forms (which you havent indicated I need to use) or information on how to start a county court claim, rather than how to claim costs if you successfully defend a such a claim made on yourself.
Do yu have a feel for what costs are reasonable and what arent, eg half a day's wages to go to court? Is there a cap on lost earnings? Presumably any postage, printing etc. Mileage to go to court and back? Claiming parking for the day of the court appearance is difficult because you wont have a receipt for this until you are literally walking to the court. At wht point does it need to be finalised and does it need to be submitted to the court in advance or do you just produce it on the day if you win?
Also, ref the items you have said I need to take with me (Proof of defence service, schedule of costs, PoC), Do I need to send these to the CNBC at the same time as I send them the Witness Statement?
-
Here are some copy-paste one-liners you can use on the costs sheet:
Option 1:
Costs sought under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct: defective PoC (CPR 16.4), ambush via WS, non-attendance, and the incorrect “no sight of Defence” assertion.
Option 2:
Pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek my costs due to the Claimant’s unreasonable behaviour—no pleaded cause of action, attempt to cure at WS stage, lawyer-authored hearsay, and non-attendance.
Option 3:
CPR 27.14(2)(g) costs: failure to plead a cause of action; new case introduced only in WS; hearsay from a non-attending paralegal; and the erroneous claim of not having my Defence.
Option 4 (with a total line):
Under CPR 27.14(2)(g), I seek £[insert total] for unreasonable conduct (defective PoC, WS ambush, non-attendance, and incorrect “no Defence served” point).
-
Many thanks for this.
Minimal extras to bring (so you can answer any quick question in 10 seconds):
.......
• A one-page costs schedule (fixed costs; and a short line for 27.14(2)(g) noting defective PoC + ambush at WS stage + non-attendance).[/indent]
What is the short line for 27.14(2)(g)?
-
Knowing how most District Judges want a quiet life and have very little time to study the case before them in these 'small claims', you need to understand how their day will progress.
The case bundle will have the N180, the N1SDT claim form and the defence at the top. The judge will lead the PoC from the N1SDT and the defence. As long as the defence is short, as ours is, the judge will then make a decision whether they need to look further into the Witness Statements.
A District Judge will not want to have to wade through a WS the likes of that submitted by the incompetents at Gladstones in this case. It is full of waffle and hearsay. It is difficult to get to the point and, in this case, tries to introduce a cause of action that was not pleaded when the claim was made.
So, I suggest a short WS from you that highlights the unreasonable behaviour of the claimant and their legal representative. A quick scan of your short WS should please the judge who is looking for the easy life and wants to dispense justice rapidly and efficiently.
This is the WS I propose:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BRISTOL
Claim No: M4GF9310
BETWEEN:
HX Car Park Management Ltd
Claimant
- and -
George Linnane
Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I, George Linnane, am the Defendant. I make this witness statement to supplement my Defence and it is from my own knowledge unless otherwise stated. The Particulars of Claim plead no cause of action: they identify no legal basis (contract, trespass or otherwise), no contractual term alleged to be incorporated, and no facts said to amount to breach. That is non-compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD16. On the pleaded case there is nothing to answer. The proper order is strike-out or dismissal under CPR 3.4(2)(a).
2. The claimant seeks to advance a cause of action for the first time in its witness statement (WS), including the narrative of a “loading bay for 17 minutes” breach and reliance on “acceptance by conduct” and PoFA keeper liability (Claimant’s WS pp.5–6, e.g. “Exhibit GS4”; PoFA discussion at p.6). A witness statement is not a pleading and cannot amend or cure defective PoC without permission. I ask the Court to disregard all new allegations and legal routes not pleaded in the PoC.
3. I rely on the persuasive County Court appeal authorities of Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan and CPMS v Akande (filed with my Defence). Both confirm that bare, template particulars which fail to plead a cause of action do not satisfy CPR 16.4 and are liable to strike-out; a defendant is not required to guess at an unparticularised case.
4. Those authorities also confirm that a claimant cannot cure defective particulars by introducing factual and legal detail for the first time in a witness statement. The Court should confine itself to the pleaded case and disregard any new allegations advanced at WS stage.
5. My Defence explained that it was impossible to respond to an unparticularised and embarrassing claim and invited strike-out for non-compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) confirmed my Defence was received and served on the claimant’s representative. Any suggestion in the WS that the claimant lacked sight of my Defence is denied. If service were genuinely in doubt, it should have been raised promptly with the Court and remedied well before WS stage; it is not an excuse to proceed on defective PoC or to try to cure them by statement.
6. The WS is authored by a paralegal employed by the claimant’s solicitors who says she acts under supervision (Claimant’s WS p.2, “Introduction”). She is not a witness of fact to the alleged event, the signage at the material time, or any landowner authority. The statement is lawyer-compiled hearsay and is not consistently in the first person or source-referenced. It attracts limited weight (PD32; Civil Evidence Act 1995, s.4). The claimant has also indicated it will not attend, so the evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination, which further reduces weight.
7. Standing is not proven. Although the WS asserts authority in “The Claimant’s Authority To Issue Parking Charges” (Claimant’s WS p.3), the exhibited landholder agreement is materially redacted such that parties, signatories, dates, scope (including any right to litigate) and site extent cannot be verified. The burden to prove locus remains unmet.
8. Contract by notice is not established. The signage relied upon in the bundle is small, dense and the charge is buried in fine print; it was not fairly or prominently brought to a driver’s attention. ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguishable on its facts; onerous terms require special notice (Spurling v Bradshaw “red-hand rule”; Interfoto v Stiletto). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires transparency and prominence; any non-transparent financial sanction is unfair and to be read against the trader.
9. Keeper liability is not made out. The WS now relies on PoFA Schedule 4 (Claimant’s WS p.6), but strict statutory compliance (including a specified period of parking and prescribed wording/timings and creditor identification) is required and is not proven. Absent compliance, the claimant must prove the driver; it has not done so.
10. I ask the Court to refuse any attempt to amend the PoC at the hearing or to rely on the WS to cure them. If, contrary to that submission, amendment were to be allowed, I ask that the hearing be vacated, that compliant Particulars be ordered by a set date, and that I be paid my costs of the wasted hearing.
11. Disposal: strike out or dismiss the claim for failure to plead a cause of action. In the alternative, exclude all material outside the PoC, give little or no weight to lawyer-compiled hearsay, and dismiss on the remaining evidence. I seek my fixed costs and, given the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour (defective PoC, ambush by WS, and the incorrect “no sight of Defence” point), a further order under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
What makes it work on the day is the top-line threshold point first: “No pleaded cause of action (CPR 16.4(1)(a)) → nothing to answer → strike-out/dismiss.”
Confined to pleadings: “WS cannot amend/cure PoC; ambush material (e.g. alleged breach details) must be ignored”.
Non-attendance & hearsay: “Lawyer-authored hearsay from a non-attending paralegal → very little weight”.
One-paragraph costs ask: fixed costs + 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.
If you keep it to ~10–12 numbered paragraphs (as per the version above), a DJ can skim the claim form + Defence, glance at your WS opening, and comfortably say: defective PoC, no appearance, hearsay only → claim dismissed with costs.
Minimal extras to bring (so you can answer any quick question in 10 seconds):
• CNBC confirmation that your Defence was served.
• The PoC page (highlight the absence of a cause of action).
• A one-page costs schedule (fixed costs; and a short line for 27.14(2)(g) noting defective PoC + ambush at WS stage + non-attendance).
-
I have had a Quick Look at their bundle but I am not going to provide any advice until you resubmit for review with ALL dates and times unredacted. That includes ALL timestamps too.
Also, please try and resubmit their landowner contract in focus.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nur4mycwydlrghjdia8ji/Witness-statement-Claimant.pdf?rlkey=hzfmndd1n9jfz9hllvy33rpqw&st=7bkya0ad&dl=0
Here is the improved and unredacted version as requested.
-
I have had a Quick Look at their bundle but I am not going to provide any advice until you resubmit for review with ALL dates and times unredacted. That includes ALL timestamps too.
Also, please try and resubmit their landowner contract in focus.
This is very easily rebutted. Their WS is written by a person with no involvement and is not written inthe first person. As they will not be in attendance, their statement should be disregarded by the court.
Don’t assume just because they say they will not be in attendance there will not be a ‘hired gun’ local advocate.
-
Gladstones WS will be a rubbish template made by a paralegal with no direct knowledge and is simply hearsay. That will be pointed out in your WS. I really won't have time to look at anything until you have shown us their WS.
Hi again, I have recieved witness statement from the Claimant, link below.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/axjun50l5xwqabken106x/WITNESS-STATEMENT-CLAIMANT.pdf?rlkey=wy8lmbi8uiy6hijfnf8msdfaq&st=sgryrlh8&dl=0
I have some observations:
- the cover letter says that the claimant will not be attending the court hearing. Will Gladstones turn up or will no-one from the Claimant's side turn up, any idea? Does this suggest that they are going to wait until the last minute and then discontinue?
- The 'defence' section of this witness statement claims they were not served with my Defence. They were, as was the court.
- Exhibit GS2, the small print at the bottom is ilegible.
- Exhibit GS3 shows that there are no terms and conditions signs where these 10 minute bays are. These bays are directly outside the front of the shops, along the red perimeter line near the location arrows for Iceland, Boots etc. The closest ones are on the opposite side of the road, where they cannot be read by a driver parking in the 10 minute bays and also appearing very much like they apply to the main car park and not the bays. This is further evidenced in the photos in Exhibit GS4, where they fail to provide a single photo where a terms and conditions sign even appears to apply to the bays where the grey vehicle is parked, let alone actually be legible by the driver of it. Furthermore the terms and conditions signs shown in Exhibit GS4 are completely different to those shown in Exhibit GS3 and are not legible so there is no evidence of the terms and conditions that were perportedly in force at the time the grey car was parked.
- In Exhibit GS3, they include a photo of a completely different car (white), parked in a "10 minute waiting bay" but the signing stating that it is such is facing away from the car so how can the driver read that? The terms and conditions signs reference "loading bays". Nowhere in Exhibit GS4 is there a photo showing that the grey vehicle is parked in a "10 minute waiting bay" or a "loading bay" so how can any terms and conditions relating to either of those things apply to the grey vehicle? The photo of the white car is not dated, that "10 minute waiting" sign may not have been there when the grey car was parked there.
-
There is absolutely no point in preparing a WS before you have seen the claimants WS. Your defence is solely based on their technical failures. Once you have sight of their WS, you can then rebut their points. Your defence is going to depend on the preliminary matter that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
You can prepare whatever you like but it will not matter until you see their WS first. It really won't matter if your WS is a day or so late. All the judge will care that there is a WS when the hearing takes place.
Gladstones WS will be a rubbish template made by a paralegal with no direct knowledge and is simply hearsay. That will be pointed out in your WS. I really won't have time to look at anything until you have shown us their WS.
Fair enough, I've diarised the date, thanks very much for your help and I'll post back here again in September when we see what happens
-
There is absolutely no point in preparing a WS before you have seen the claimants WS. Your defence is solely based on their technical failures. Once you have sight of their WS, you can then rebut their points. Your defence is going to depend on the preliminary matter that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
You can prepare whatever you like but it will not matter until you see their WS first. It really won't matter if your WS is a day or so late. All the judge will care that there is a WS when the hearing takes place.
Gladstones WS will be a rubbish template made by a paralegal with no direct knowledge and is simply hearsay. That will be pointed out in your WS. I really won't have time to look at anything until you have shown us their WS.
-
Thanks. It would be good to have a Witness Statement ready before the though so that I am not rushing to create one in the last few days before the deadline. Would you or someone else here have time to look at mine and advise if it is any good / could be improved please?
-
So, on Thursday 18th September, you call the court and check whether the trial fee has been paid. Put it in your diary.
-
The original DropBox link you provided showed a long MSE template defence.
Carefully read the whole order and tell me if there is any mention in there about the parties being required to submit copies of all documents they intend to rely on no later than 14 days before the hearing date or some such deadline.
The order says that the claimant has to pay the £27 by 4pm on 17th September or the claim gets struck out.
It also says that all documents relevant to the case must be submitted by me to the claimant and the court by 4pm on 24th September, i.e. a week later. The same requirement is placed on the claimant, i.e. they must serve all docs to me and the court by the same date.
The order is in the dropbox folder if you want to see it for yourself for any reason.
-
The original DropBox link you provided showed a long MSE template defence.
Carefully read the whole order and tell me if there is any mention in there about the parties being required to submit copies of all documents they intend to rely on no later than 14 days before the hearing date or some such deadline.
-
When was this allocated to your local court. What were the orders given? What are the deadlines for the claimant to pay the £27 trial fee? What is the date of the hearing? Have you received a copy of the claimants WS yet?
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/efpzi37uc313lxf2ag61e/allocation-instructions.pdf?rlkey=yn267zh1na0fiathq05ac9uk5&st=3xvztftp&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/efpzi37uc313lxf2ag61e/allocation-instructions.pdf?rlkey=yn267zh1na0fiathq05ac9uk5&st=3xvztftp&dl=0)
No WS received from claimant yet
You did not use the defence I advised. Why not? You have thrown away the perfect CPR 16.4(1)(a) failure by not referencing or including the Chan and Akande transcripts!
I used exactly the defence you advised. You advised it on 27th of January in this thread. I submitted it as a defence. The claim was not struck out, instead it has rumbled on to the stage we are now at. I understand why you think differently and have now updated the dropbbox folder with the actual defence I submitted to the court and claimant.
-
When was this allocated to your local court. What were the orders given? What are the deadlines for the claimant to pay the £27 trial fee? What is the date of the hearing? Have you received a copy f the claimants WS yet?
DO NOT prepare a WS until you have received the claimants WS.
An attempt at defence was made using b789's text from 27th Jan in this thread.
You did not use the defence I advised. Why not? You have thrown away the perfect CPR 16.4(1)(a) failure by not referencing or including the Chan and Akande transcripts!
-
Hi again.
An attempt at defence was made using b789's text from 27th Jan in this thread. We are now at Witness Statement stage and I've written one which is in the FTLA folder here https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/3f3m4602iwtjgblgwzxig/ABhwPb3WescsKlCsYAz3eTg?rlkey=padw4kgmaa6oggys0ygqt5v4k&st=aelr7cno&dl=0
Please can those with more experience than me in these matters look over it and give opinion / any pointers?
Thanks in advance
-
This is very kind, thanks a lot for providing this, it has certainly simplified things. Hopefully it will have the desired effect.
-
Assume that the very first you know about this matter is the Claim form. How on earth can you figure out from those PoC what the defendant is supposed to have done? Simply stating that the defendant breached a contract without specifying what terms were breached and how, let alone the rest of it, is a serious breach of CPR 16.4. If the losers at Gladstones cannot fit the detail that is required into the MCOL because of the character limitation, then they should issue further particulars within 14 days of the claim.
Did you provide an email address for service when you completed the AoS? This makes a difference as to the date before which you must not submit the defence. If you did not proved an email address, then working back from the latest date that the claimant could serve further PoC (Monday 3rd February), thus correcting their error, is that they must be sent (posted) no later than Thursday, 30th January 2025 to ensure deemed service by 3rd February 2025.
If you did provide an email address with your AoS, then if using email or other instantaneous means, the further PoC must be sent by 3rd February 2025, assuming the method ensures same-day receipt.
However, you do not want to alert the morons at Gladrags that they have screwed up and so you must not submit the defence before Tuesday 4th February. If you submit the defence before those dates, depending on whether you gave them an email address or not, then they could try and correct their error.
So, having submitted an AoS, you now have until 4pm on Monday 17th February to submit your defence which means that you have plenty of time but should NOT submit it before Friday 31st January if no email address was provided with the AoS or NOT before Tuesday 4th February if an email address was provided with the AoS.
As this is a claim issued by the useless so called professionals at Gladstones, a firm of failed wannabe legals who cannot even complete a simple MCOL claim without screwing it up because they fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a),you only need the following as your defence. All you need to do is edit your name and the claim number and then sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and dating it. There is nothing to edit in the attached transcripts or the attached draft order.
When you have completed the defence, you save all the documents as PDF files and attach them to an email addressed to cliamresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and you CC in yourself. Make sure that the email subject contains the claim number and in the body of the email you simply put: "Please find attached the defence, associated transcripts and a draft order in the matter of HX Car Park Management Ltd v [your full name] claim no.: [claim number]".
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
HX Car Park Management Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not disclose any valid cause of action.
Preliminary Matter
2. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with the mandatory requirements of CPR 16.4(1)(a), which states that the PoC must include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. The PoC are so deficient in particulars that they fail to disclose a cause of action, making it impossible for the Defendant to plead properly.
3. Specifically, the PoC lack:
(a) The specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;
(b) The precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;
(c) Attachment or details of the contract relied upon, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.5;
(d) Particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;
(e) An explanation of how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) Clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the court strikes out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) on the basis that:
• The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; and
• The statement of case is an abuse of process.
5. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.
Alternative Submission
6. The Defendant submits that the correct course of action is for the court to strike out the claim due to the Claimant's clear and material failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The rules exist to ensure fairness, and the Claimant's non-compliance cannot be excused. The Defendant asserts that "rules are rules," and the Claimant has failed to follow them.
7. However, in the unlikely event that the court does not agree with the persuasive nature of the cited appellate decisions, the Defendant submits the following alternative:
• The court should make an order requiring the Claimant to provide the following further and better detailed particulars:
(a) Set out the specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;
(b) Specify the precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;
(c) Provide attachment or details of the contract relied upon, as required by CPR PD 16.7.5;
(d) Provide particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;
(e) Explain how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) Clarify whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
8. Without such particulars, the Defendant is unable to properly respond to the claim, resulting in unfairness and prejudice.
Draft Order
9. A draft order is appended to this defence, which the Defendant requests the court to consider adopting should the claim not be struck out at this stage.
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.
Signed:
Date:
CEL v Chan transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=5735s458&dl=0)
CPMS v Akande transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=4z757gg9&dl=0)
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/z8zcqfdncdoajgj4ag6a4/short-defence-order.pdf?rlkey=at98xmfwj0ehi3w9d0ia15ogp&st=saqthunn&dl=0)
-
We also need to know the issue date of the Claim.
^^
He we go, attached, my apologies for redacting it previously
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please stop sharing that confidential photo of FTLA's HQ.
-
Unless you show the issue date of the claim and the dates on the NtK, we can't help you.
I don't understand why people think that not redacting dates is somehow going to affect their case. It doesn't and if you redact them, you cannot get assistance. These unregulated parking companies issue over 40,000 PCNs a DAY!!! If you are imagining that the employ a tram of hooded yoofs all huddled over computer screens in a dark room scouring the internet for detail of your PCN, then so what? What do you think is going to happen or what can they do if they were even able to spot your PCN? Nothing!
(https://i.imgur.com/Ld773td.jpeg)
Luckily for you, they have used the useless wannabe legals at Gladstones to issue the claim which means tha they have completely screwed up the Particulars of Claim (PoC) by failing to provide a concise statement of facts which is in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means that if defended correctly, it should be struck out at allocation stage.
-
We also need to know the issue date of the Claim.
^^
-
Thanks both. I have attached the POC, draft defence and the PCN/NTK to this post. Solicitor is Gladstones. Identity of driver has not been revealed.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We also need to know the issue date of the Claim. Some parts of your initial appeal were correct but others not.
However, the NtK was not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and so, the Keeper cannot be liable, only the driver. HX do not know the identity of the driver unless the Keeper blabbed it, inadvertently or otherwise.
Which bulk litigator are HX using to file their claim? Show us the Particulars of Claim (PoC). Show us your draft defence.
-
Welcome.
In order to advise on the contents of the defence, we will need to see the Particulars of Claim that they are in response to.
-
Hi all,
Private parking ticket from last year, allegedly for the heinous crime of spending 17 minutes in a 10 minute spot. HX and IAS both upheld the PCN on appeal. County Court Claim form recieved, I've done the Acknowledgment Of Service and have drafted a defence. It's in this dropbox folder if anyone would have time to look over it and give me their opinion. Thanks in advance.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/3f3m4602iwtjgblgwzxig/ABhwPb3WescsKlCsYAz3eTg?rlkey=padw4kgmaa6oggys0ygqt5v4k&st=aelr7cno&dl=0