Here's where I've got to so far - I'm not sure whether to respond purely to what's on the claim form, or also speculate that they're pursuing lack of permit and pre-emptively respond to that.
OR just respond purely to what's on the claim form, wait for them to raise it in response to defence and then apply for strike-off on the basis of them bringing in materially new information that they failed to disclose in their initial claim...
Defence
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or to any sum at all.
It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time. The Particulars of Claim do not state whether the Claimant alleges liability as driver or seeks to invoke keeper liability pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA"). The Claimant has not pleaded that the Defendant was the driver and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver.
Insofar as the Claimant seeks to rely upon keeper liability under PoFA, the Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with every applicable statutory condition contained within Schedule 4.
Defective Particulars and non-compliance with the CPR
The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires a claimant to provide a concise statement of the facts upon which it relies.
The entirety of the pleaded allegation concerning breach is that the vehicle was:
"Parked in breach of the terms notified on the signage at the car park"
The Claimant does not identify:
a. the contractual term allegedly breached;
b. the conduct alleged to constitute that breach;
c. whether liability is alleged against the Defendant as driver or keeper;
d. how the alleged contract was formed;
e. the contractual basis upon which £170 became payable; or
f. how any amount exceeding the original parking charge is recoverable.
This is not a minor technical deficiency. The Claimant has commenced legal proceedings while failing to plead the essential factual basis of its cause of action. The Defendant should not be required to speculate as to the case being advanced, nor to plead a defence to allegations the Claimant has chosen not to make.
The Claimant is accordingly put to strict proof of its pleaded case. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to consider the Claimant's non-compliance with CPR 16.4 when exercising its case management powers, including the powers available under CPR 3.4.
In particular, the Defendant reserves the right to seek strike-out of the claim, or such other order as the Court considers appropriate, if the Claimant fails properly to particularise a legally recognisable cause of action.
Alleged permit requirement
Without prejudice to the foregoing, and only insofar as the Claimant later seeks to contend that the alleged breach concerned a requirement to obtain or register a parking permit, it is denied that any such term was sufficiently brought to the driver's attention or incorporated into any contract.
On the material date, the driver was a legitimate visitor to the premises for the purpose of attending an established local residents' association meeting.
Meetings had previously been held at the same premises and no vehicle-registration or permit system had previously been in operation. Such a system had subsequently been introduced.
The change was not communicated to the driver. The meeting organisers did not advise attendees that vehicle registration was required and attendees were not directed to a tablet, keypad or other registration device.
The driver did not see any such registration device and was unaware that any additional action was required after parking.
The fact that legitimate attendees of an established meeting were not made aware of the newly introduced procedure is relied upon as evidence that the alleged contractual requirement was not adequately communicated to persons legitimately using the premises.
Signage and contractual formation
It is denied that the mere existence of signage somewhere within a car park establishes the formation of a contract incorporating every term appearing upon it.
The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage actually present on the material date, including its wording, positioning, prominence, visibility and illumination, together with evidence demonstrating how a driver entering and parking at the site would reasonably have been made aware of:
a. the alleged registration requirement;
b. the means by which registration was to be completed; and
c. the financial consequence of failing to do so.
It is therefore denied that the Claimant has established that the alleged term was sufficiently brought to the driver's attention before or at the point at which any contract could allegedly have been formed.
Claimant's authority
The Defendant further denies that the Claimant has established sufficient authority from the relevant landholder, on the material date, to impose the particular restrictions relied upon, contract in its own name, levy charges against legitimate visitors in the circumstances alleged, and pursue those charges by litigation.
The Claimant is put to strict proof of such authority.
Evidential concerns
The Claimant has previously relied upon photographic material containing differing timestamps upon the same image.
No allegation of deliberate alteration is presently made. However, insofar as the Claimant seeks to rely upon that material, the Claimant is put to strict proof of its provenance, chronology, accuracy and reliability.
Quantum
The amount claimed is denied.
The Particulars state that £170 is due but fail to plead any proper calculation or contractual basis for that sum. In particular, no explanation is given as to the legal basis upon which any amount exceeding the original parking charge is said to have become due.
If the Claimant relies upon PoFA to pursue the Defendant as registered keeper, the Defendant relies upon paragraph 4(5) of Schedule 4, which limits the amount recoverable from the keeper by virtue of keeper liability to the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper.
The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper and of any lawful basis for the additional sum claimed.
The Defendant further denies the Claimant's entitlement to interest insofar as such interest has been calculated upon any sum which was not itself lawfully due.
Pre-action conduct and costs
Prior to proceedings, the Defendant expressly sought clarification and supporting documentation concerning the basis of the alleged debt.
Notwithstanding those requests and the opportunity thereby afforded to properly identify and narrow the issues in dispute before litigation, the Claimant has commenced proceedings using Particulars which still fail to identify the specific contractual breach upon which the claim is based.
The Defendant will rely upon the parties' pre-action correspondence insofar as relevant to the Claimant's compliance with the applicable pre-action requirements, its subsequent non-compliance with the CPR, and the reasonableness of its conduct in commencing and pursuing these proceedings.
The Defendant expressly reserves the right to seek all appropriate procedural and costs sanctions arising from the Claimant's conduct, including, should this matter be allocated to the small claims track, an order for costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the basis of unreasonable behaviour.
The Defendant further reserves the right to invite the Court to consider any appropriate sanction arising from material non-compliance with the applicable pre-action requirements.
Pursuant to CPR 16.5, all allegations not expressly admitted are denied or, where the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient particulars to permit an informed admission or denial, the
Claimant is required to prove them.
In the circumstances, the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim and to make such order as to costs as it considers appropriate.