Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Waqas on May 12, 2026, 07:04:52 pm
-
Thank you so much- DWMB2- Global Moderator
My draft defence is as follows:
"SUBSTITUTE DEFENCE
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 Defendant acknowledges receipt of the amended Particulars of Claim purportedly served pursuant to the Order dated 11 March 2026. However, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to comply with the terms and requirements of that Order.
The Order expressly directed the Claimant to identify “whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. The amended Particulars of Claim fail to do so with the requisite certainty or specificity.
In particular:
(a) the amended Particulars of Claim state that the claim is brought pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) “where applicable”, but fail to state whether POFA is in fact applicable and relied upon in this claim;
(b) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of action by further stating at paragraph 5.2 that “where POFA is not relied upon”, the Claimant will instead seek to establish liability on an alternative basis;
(c) the Claimant has therefore failed to identify clearly and unequivocally whether the Defendant is pursued as driver, keeper pursuant to POFA, or both;
(d) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to advance speculative and contradictory alternatives without properly pleading the legal basis upon which the Claimant seeks to recover the alleged debt.
Accordingly, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to comply with the Court’s Order and continues to fail adequately to particularise the basis of the claim with sufficient clarity and precision. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim.
Further and in the alternative, if the Court is not minded to strike out the claim, the Defendant responds to the amended Particulars of Claim as follows.
The Defendant denies that any enforceable contractual liability arose between the Claimant and the Defendant.
The Defendant is unable fully to understand the contractual basis of the claim because:
(a) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the signage relied upon was sufficiently prominent, legible, illuminated (if applicable), and capable of binding a reasonable motorist;
(b) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the terms and conditions relied upon were adequately brought to the attention of drivers prior to any alleged contract being formed;
(c) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof regarding the precise location, positioning, prominence, wording, and visibility of the signage relied upon at the material time;
(d) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the keypad registration system referred to in the amended Particulars of Claim was operational, accessible, properly maintained, clearly explained to patrons, and functioning correctly at the material time.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant has sufficiently proven the identity of the driver and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.
To the extent that the Claimant seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of POFA, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has complied with the mandatory statutory requirements necessary to establish keeper liability. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with each and every requirement of Schedule 4 of POFA.
Further and in the alternative, if POFA is not relied upon, the Claimant is required to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the identity of the driver. Mere keeper status does not create any lawful presumption of driver liability.
The Defendant further denies that the additional sum of £60, described variously as “contractual costs”, “debt recovery costs” or similar, is recoverable.
The Defendant avers that the additional £60 constitutes an attempt at double recovery and is contrary to established authority and the indemnity principle. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such sum was genuinely incurred, contractually agreed, and lawfully recoverable.
The Defendant further avers that the additional charges claimed exceed the level of parking charge considered by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and that no legitimate interest or commercial justification has been established for the enhanced sum now claimed.
The Defendant denies that the contractual terms relied upon were fair, transparent, or sufficiently prominent so as to satisfy the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The Defendant notes that the original claim was previously found by the Court not to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), resulting in the original Particulars of Claim being struck out unless amended. The Defendant maintains that the amended pleading remains materially deficient for the reasons set out above.
The Defendant respectfully reserves the right to amend, supplement, or expand upon this Defence should further documents, evidence, or information be disclosed by the Claimant."
-
In my view, there are two angles from which you can defend:
The first thing I would do in your amended defence (after the initial standard point denying that the claimant is entitled to any sum) is to state that the Claimant has not actually complied with the judge's order. The order stated that the new Particulars of Claim must identify "whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act". The particulars still do not do this - they again set out alternative causes of action. They say that the claim is brought under PoFA "where applicable", but do not confirm whether it is applicable (and they are therefore seeking to rely on it) in this case. They then go on in 5.2 of their PoC to say "where PoFA is not relied upon...".
They have therefore not identified whether or not the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, and have therefore failed to comply with the court's order. The claim should therefore be struck out.
In case it is not, you may then wish to go on and present a more thorough defence that responds to each of the allegations in the new PoC. However, I would definitely lead with the points around them failing to comply with the order.
-
Do you have the original PCN?
What was the car doing there, was the driver a user of either of the places in question?
On the face of it it looks to me like the defence would need to home in on the keeper liability (or hopefully lack thereof!).
-
I received this parking ticket.
https://ibb.co/LXtKzrXB
I completed AOS and submitted my defence (using template) as follows:
"
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 adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide 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.
The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive appellate cases:
Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ Murch, ref: E7GM9W44
CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans, ref: K0DP5J30
In both cases, the claim was struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4. In those cases, the court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for case management.
ORDER:
The claim is struck out.
Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made. "
Court received ny defence and defence was sent to the claimant.
Then received email from the solicitor
"Dear ..............
We act for the Claimant and have notified the Court of the Claimant’s intention to proceed with the Claim.
Please find enclosed a copy of the Claimant’s completed Directions Questionnaire, which has also been filed with the Court.
You will note the Claimant has elected to mediate in an attempt to settle this matter amicably, without the need for further Court intervention. Should you agree to mediation, please inform the Court who will contact both parties to arrange a mediation appointment.
Yours sincerely
Skye
Legal Assistant
Glad... Solicitors Limited " They have also sent a filled N180 form attached.
https://ibb.co/JjgmbjBk Defendent N-180
https://ibb.co/zH2Rfmf8 Claimant N-180
also I objecetd to claimant N-180
"
County Court Business Centre (CNBC)
Claim no.: [XXXXXXX]
Parties: [Claimant] v [Defendant]
OBJECTION TO CLAIMANT’S N180 DIRECTIONS QUESTIONNAIRE (DEFECTIVE SIGNATURE & AUTHORISATION)
I object to the Claimant’s purported filing of Form N180, which is “signed” only as “Gladstones Solicitors Ltd” with no identified individual signatory.
Signature defect (PD 5A)
Form N180 requires a valid signature by the party or an identified legal representative. Practice Direction 5A requires documents to be signed where indicated by the person responsible; where that person acts as a member/employee of a firm, the firm’s name may be added, but a firm name alone is not a signature. The absence of an identified individual undermines accountability and is procedurally defective.
Conduct of litigation (Legal Services Act 2007)
Signing and filing an N180 is a step in the “conduct of litigation” within s.12 and Schedule 2 paragraph 4 of the Legal Services Act 2007. Only the party, an authorised person, or an exempt person under Schedule 3 may carry out reserved legal activities.
Mazur
authority
The High Court in
Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
[2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) (16 September 2025) confirmed that employees who are not themselves authorised (and not within a Schedule 3 exemption) cannot conduct litigation, even if supervised. The individual who signs must personally be authorised (or exempt).
Potential statutory non-compliance
If the person who completed/signed the N180 is not authorised or exempt, carrying on a reserved legal activity may contravene s.14 of the Legal Services Act 2007.
Directions sought
A) That the Claimant be directed within 7 days to re-file and serve a properly signed N180 which:
(i) identifies the individual signatory by name and status/position; and
(ii) confirms that the signatory is authorised (or states the relied-upon Schedule 3 exemption) to conduct litigation.
B) That until compliance, the current N180 be treated as defective and disregarded for case-management purposes, with any further sanction at the Court’s discretion in the event of non-compliance.
Service
These documents are served on the Claimant’s solicitors by copy of this email.
Signed:
[Date] "
Then there was mediation appointment- which I attended and which was not success full. My case got transfered to Manchester court. Manchester court struck off the case and asked claiment to re-submit with the detailed version. Claimant submitted the new claim as below
https://ibb.co/b5W3JgJx
https://ibb.co/M5sM1mrm
Then claimant submitted a new claim:
https://ibb.co/gMCzqgVG
https://ibb.co/YBWFYSBP
https://ibb.co/qFp4zGNg
https://ibb.co/3Y19dVkJ
https://ibb.co/QjF9Lvzh
https://ibb.co/LXn5kXDR
https://ibb.co/8gYybbqC
https://ibb.co/VWcY2p60
https://ibb.co/M5Rr8TTz
https://ibb.co/xK8WqVQV
https://ibb.co/9HmYCvDQ
https://ibb.co/G45tV1Rx
https://ibb.co/g2yCwCm
https://ibb.co/hJH4b6MS
https://ibb.co/7tBPKT18
Now I have till 20 May to update my defence, I would appreciate some guidance on what changes I should make to strengthen my defence.