Link Parking Roboclaim: Deficient particulars

This case has been rumbling on for some time as Link or Gladstones had failed to a) send in clear particulars and b) actually send them in on time. So the case has been back and forward wasteing the court's time, Link's costs and the Defendant's time. And rather than admit they messed up, they simply claimed that the Defendant failed to comply with the Civil Procedures Rules for not answering their gibberish letters.

Sometimes you have to wonder what goes on in their minds.

Roboclaim: Deficient Particulars. Link's second attempt







1. The Claimant is a Parking Operator managing the Land at [Insert Location] ('the Land’). The Defendant was at all material times the Registered Keeper and Driver of registration number [Insert VRM] (“the Vehicle’).


2. The Claimant entered into a contract with the driver of the Vehicle on [Insert Date] ('the Contract'). The Claimant avers the driver was the Defendant and for this reason hereon in refers to them as such.

[Editors Note: This is not actually true as Link paperwork fails to meet the requirements to hold a Keeper liable so check your paperwork and be able to show why it fails. A DVLA check also helps.]

3. The Claimant installed signs (i.e. the 'Contract‘) on the Land that set out its terms of parking and through the act of parking without displaying a valid parking permit the Defendant accepted these terms and as such entered into the Contract. A copy of the Contract is attached to these Particulars of Claim marked ‘Document 1’.

4. The Contract contained the following express terms:

"Parking in this area is permitted for: vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit"

"By Parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, you, the driver agree to pay consideration in the form of a ’parking charge’ in the sum of £100 to be paid within 28 days of issue."

"Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the parking charge."

[Editors Note: Most parking companies have issues with signs and make claims about signs that were not there or were placed after the event. Sometimes they have conflicting signs where some have replaced some but not all. So get your own photos and get copies of theirs too. The signs also fail the "clarity" test set out in the ParkingEye v Beavis test.]

5. As the Defendant parked without displaying a valid parking permit on [Insert Date] they were accordingly (pursuant to the Contract) issued a Parking Charge Notice [Insert Reference] (’the PCN’) on the same day. The PCN was attached to the vehicle.

6. The Defendant was obliged to pay the sum of £100 within 28 days of the PCN.


7. In breach of the Contract, the Defendant failed to pay the sum of £100.00. As a result of the non-payment the Claimant obtained the Defendant's’ details from the DVLA and consequently expended time and material pursuing the debt (notwithstanding the debt's referral to the Claimant’s legal representative for which there has been an additional cost).

[Editors Note: The referral was by a Judge due to Gladstones not providing full particulars.]

8. In respect of the above, the Claimant claims the sum of £50.00 damages as a pre-determined and nominal contribution to its actual losses.

[Editor Note: The main challenge is to the £50 they have added on for "costs" already. Get them to prove that the £50 has been incurred and not just double charging for "legal" service i.e. sending out a template Roboclaim. See ParkingEye v Somerfield at para #419]

9. The Defendant failed to comply with the Practice Direction on Pre-action conduct as she failed to respond to the Claimant's Letter Before Claim.

[Editor Note: Link/Gladstones were actually instructed to replead their case as the particulars on the Letter before Claim and the Claim itself were deficient. The onus is on the Claimant to provide details not for people to reply to their Letters before Claim.]


10. The Claimant claims £100.00 as a debt and £50.00 as a damage.

[Editor Note: See #8 above]

11. Further, the Claimant claims interest under the County Courts Act 1989 at a rate of 8% from 9 October 2015 until the date of issue of this claim and continuing at a rate of 3p per day until judgment or earlier payment or alternatively at such rate that the Court thinks fit.

12. The Claimant claims costs on an indemnity basis pursuant to its contractual right in the Contract that states “Enforcement action may incur additional costs that will be added to the parking charge".

(1) The sum of £100.00 as a debt,
(2) Statutory interest as set out above,
(3) Further, damages for the Defendant’s breach of contract in the sum of £50.00 as set out above.
(4) Costs on an indemnity basis as set out above (together with the fixed costs of issue and any Court fees).


The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign this statement.

Full name:


Have more questions? Submit a request


Please sign in to leave a comment.
Powered by Zendesk