That is stupidly unfair order where the judge has given the claimant a free lifeline by allowing them to submit further PoC without giving the defendant an opportunity to amend their defence accordingly. Why on earth did you wait so long to let us know abut this? You are now on the back foot because of your failure to keep us up to date with EVERYTHING to so with the case!!!
The following should have been sent to the court the day after you received the amended PoC... not three whole months later!!!!
The Court Manager
County Court at Kingston-upon-Thames
St James Road
Kingston upon Thames
Surrey KT1 2AD
Re: [Claim Number] – [Defendant’s Full Name]
Date: [Insert today's date]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write as the Defendant in the above claim and as a litigant in person.
When I submitted my Defence, I attached a draft order requesting that the Claimant be ordered to provide further and better Particulars of Claim, listing in detail the information I needed in order to understand the case and plead a proper Defence. The court did not refer to or adopt that draft. Instead, the order dated 31 December 2024 simply directed the Claimant to file "a CPR compliant particulars of claim" by 14 January 2025.
This created procedural uncertainty and denied me the clarity that my draft order was intended to provide. The Claimant has now filed amended Particulars of Claim. However, the new version still does not comply with CPR 16.4, nor does it provide the information which the court clearly intended to be disclosed.
The amended Particulars of Claim fail to:
• Attach a copy of the contract relied upon
• Set out the actual contractual clauses said to have been breached
• Provide a copy of the parking charge notice
• State how or when the PCN was served
• Provide a full postal address for the alleged location
• State clearly whether the Defendant is pursued as the driver or the keeper (instead continuing to plead both in the alternative)
• Provide any explanation or contractual basis for the “contractual costs” claimed
• Include any valid statutory interest calculation or any indication of when the alleged debt arose
Worse still, the amended Particulars of Claim do not even state the date on which the alleged contravention occurred. Paragraph 7 refers to an entry time of 08:32 and exit time of 09:45, but no date is given. Without a date of contravention, the Particulars of Claim are defective and incomplete. There is no way for me to know on what date the alleged breach is said to have occurred or when any cause of action accrued.
Despite this, the Claimant claims £33.36 in statutory interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984, again without specifying when the interest began, what daily rate was used, or how the figure was calculated. This is a clear breach of the court’s order at paragraph 2(l), which expressly required the Claimant to “set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest started running”.
The original Defence I submitted was necessarily brief, because the Claimant’s original statement of case was vague, and I could not meaningfully respond to a case that had not been properly pleaded. It is fundamentally unjust for the Claimant to be allowed to amend their claim without cost, and yet for me to be denied the opportunity to amend my Defence unless I pay a court fee.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the court:
1. Either grant me permission to file and serve an amended Defence within 14 days of notification, without the need for a formal application or court fee;
OR
2. Strike out the claim in its entirety due to the Claimant’s continued failure to file CPR 16.4-compliant Particulars of Claim and for non-compliance with the court’s order dated 31 December 2024.
I trust the court will recognise the prejudice caused by the Claimant’s conduct and ensure that a litigant in person is not subjected to further unfair procedural disadvantage.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email if applicable]
I doubt that any judge would see a lack of response to an LoC as "unreasonable". The LoC is not even entered into evidence unless at WS stage and has no bearing on the short defence and the failure of the claimant to fully particularise the claim.
This is a very recent court order to a claimant for failing to properly particularise their claim and is under consideration for claims that are questionable as to their PoFA applicability, such as in this case:
UPON reading the Particulars of Claim
ORDER
1. The Claimant must by 4pm within 7 days of the date of this order file and serve a Particulars of Claim, supported by a statement of truth, identifying;
a) Whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
If so,
b) By reference to the definition of "relevant obligation" in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, whether it is alleged that the claim is based on relevant obligation;
i) "arising under the terms of a relevant contract" or
ii) "arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract , as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land"
c) If a contract is alleged, what was the consideration provided by the Claimant and what was the breach of contract
d) If no contract is alleged, what was the "trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land".
If the claim is not brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,
e) The cause of action and how it arose.
f) If the cause of action is breach of contract, the parties to the contract, the consideration provided by the Claimant and the alleged breach of contract.
2) If the Claimant fails to comply with the above direction, the claim shall be struck out automatically and without further order.
3) If the Claimant complies with this Order the Defendant may by 4pm within 14 days of the Claimant complying send to the court and the Claimant's solicitors a Defence in substitution for the existing Defence if so advised.
4) At the expiry of the time limit at 3), the file will be referred back to any District Judge for further case management.
I can't wait to the response to that order.