IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORD
CLAIM NO: [claim number]
Private Parking Solutions Ltd (Claimant) v [your full name] (Defendant)
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
A. INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES
1. This Skeleton supports my Amended Defence and invites strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) (no reasonable grounds) or dismissal. The Claimant’s case has been advanced first by a Legal Assistant who expressly claimed “conduct of the action subject to supervision”, and then—at the eleventh hour—by a different deponent (a solicitor) who simply re-signed the same witness statement. That late substitution is prejudicial and unreasonable.
2. The issues are:(1) Keeper liability under PoFA Sch 4 is unavailable: the NtK fails mandatory requirements (no “period of parking” under para 9(2)(a); defective keeper warning under para 9(2)(f)).
(2) In the absence of PoFA compliance, the Claimant must prove I was the driver; it does not.
(3) Breach is not proved on the exhibits (contradictory timings; photos do not evidence “parking”).
(4) The additional £70 is not contractual and is irrecoverable (double recovery).
(5) Interest is not properly particularised (PD 16).
(6) Standing is not proved: the contract is redacted in the very respects needed to show authority.
(7) Weight and conduct: the WS is largely hearsay/advocacy; the Claimant will not attend (CPR 27.9); there is an additional concern about unauthorised conduct of litigation.
(8) Late substitution/ambush: the Claimant has replaced the paralegal deponent with a solicitor at the last minute, without permission, to “cure” an unauthorised conduct point; this is an abuse that should be excluded or attract costs.
B. STRIKE-OUT: PLEADINGS DEFECTIVE EVEN AFTER A “SECOND CHANCE”
3. The original PoC did not disclose a cause of action. The Court afforded the Claimant a lifeline by directing F-PoC. Despite that indulgence, the F-PoC remains non-compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a): it still does not set out a concise statement of material facts establishing liability (including a coherent PoFA route, a pleaded driver case if PoFA fails, or a contractual basis for the £70).
4. Persuasive authorities support strike-out where particulars remain inadequate despite an opportunity to cure (e.g. Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023); CPMS v Akande (2024)).
C. LATE SUBSTITUTION OF WITNESS: AMBUSH AND ABUSE
5. The Claimant first served a witness statement signed by a Legal Assistant who stated she had “conduct of this action, subject to the supervision of [her] principal.” Conduct of litigation is a reserved activity (Legal Services Act 2007, ss.12 & 14; Sch.2). Supervision does not authorise an otherwise unauthorised person to conduct litigation: Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
6. At the eleventh hour, the Claimant served a second witness statement (“WS2”) in the same terms but now signed by a solicitor who asserts she “is a Solicitor… [and has] conduct of this matter” and re-signs a fresh Statement of Truth dated 14 October 2025.
7. This is not a correction of a slip; it is a late substitution of the witness. On Denton, the breach is serious and significant; no good reason is given; and all the circumstances—especially trial by ambush—favour refusal of relief. The Defendant prepared to meet a paralegal deponent; the evidential foundation has been switched to a solicitor with no first-hand knowledge.
8. Orders sought (sequenced):(i) Exclusion: refuse WS2; confine the Claimant to the first statement; or
(ii) Adjournment with costs (if WS2 is admitted): vacate and relist with the Claimant paying the Defendant’s costs thrown away; and
(iii) Attendance: if the Court proceeds, require WS2’s deponent to attend for cross-examination; otherwise WS2 should attract little or no weight (CPR 32.1; CEA 1995, s.4).
D. WEIGHT, NON-ATTENDANCE, AND UNAUTHORISED CONDUCT
9. The Claimant chose to advance its case initially via a Legal Assistant who admitted “conduct of the action subject to supervision.” Conduct of litigation is a reserved activity (LSA 2007, ss.12, 14; Sch.2). Supervision does not confer authorisation: Mazur (above). The later switch to a solicitor deponent—re-signing the same narrative—confirms the attempt to “cure” this defect, but does so out of time and without permission. The Court should: (i) give minimal weight to lawyer-authored advocacy and hearsay; (ii) exclude WS2 or require attendance for cross-examination; and (iii) mark the unreasonable conduct in costs.
E. POfA NON-COMPLIANCE: KEEPER LIABILITY FAILS
10. The Claimant elects to pursue me as keeper under PoFA. Strict compliance is required. The NtK states only a single timestamp and no “period of parking”, contrary to para 9(2)(a). Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) confirms that a single instant does not suffice; there must be a period of parking.
11. The NtK’s keeper warning departs from para 9(2)(f) by conflating payment and driver-naming and not mirroring the prescribed invitation/warning. Having elected PoFA, the Claimant must bring itself strictly within it; it has not.
12 Result: keeper liability is unavailable. The claim can only succeed by proving I was the driver; it does not attempt to do so.
F. DRIVER NOT PROVED
13. Where PoFA is not met, the Claimant must prove the defendant was the driver. The persuasive appellate decisions in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (2017) and VCS v Edward (2023) confirm there is no presumption that keeper = driver. The Claimant adduces no such proof.
G. BREACH NOT PROVED ON THE CLAIMANT’S OWN EXHIBITS
14. The Claimant’s materials are internally inconsistent on time. The NtK fixes a single “incident” time, whereas the WS asserts a different 25-minute window. That contradiction undermines any alleged period of parking and the allegation of breach.
15. The photographs do not evidence “parking” as opposed to a brief stop/manoeuvre. Jopson v Homeguard (2016) (CC appeal) explains that brief stopping is not “parking”.
16. The allegation of “no Blue Badge displayed” is unsupported by a clear, probative windscreen image. The burden of proof lies with the Claimant; it has not discharged it.
H. THE £70 ADD-ON: NOT CONTRACTUAL; DOUBLE RECOVERY
17. The signage wording quoted by the Claimant states a £100 charge for failure to display a Blue Badge; the NtK likewise contains no £70 term. The first reference to £170 appears only in later correspondence. A post-event reminder cannot retrospectively enlarge the contract.
18. The £70 is an impermissible add-on. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 at [98] explains that the charge includes the costs of enforcement and debt recovery; adding a fixed “debt recovery” sum is double recovery.
19. The Claimant’s reliance on trade-body codes to justify the £70 is muddled and misdated (including reference to a code adopted after the 2023 event and a different ATA than named on the NtK). A code cannot invent a term that was not part of the contract.
I. INTEREST NOT PARTICULARISED
20. The F-PoC pleads a figure and daily rate but gives no start date or calculation basis, contrary to PD 16. The pleading remains defective.
J. STANDING NOT PROVED
21. The contract exhibit is redacted such that the identity/role of the signatory and the status of the counter-party are concealed. The Court cannot verify a grant of authority to issue PCNs and to litigate in the operator’s own name. The Claimant is put to strict proof; little weight should attach to a document that hides the very matters it is tendered to prove.
K. RELIEF SOUGHT
22. On the Claimant’s own materials: (i) PoFA is not complied with; (ii) the driver is not proved; (iii) breach is not proved; (iv) the £70 add-on is not contractual; (v) interest is not particularised; and (vi) standing is not proved. The Court is invited to:(1) Strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a); or
(2) Dismiss the claim; and
(3) Costs for unreasonable conduct (CPR 27.14(2)(g)): The Claimant’s conduct includes (a) persistently defective pleadings despite a second chance; (b) contradictory materials; (c) advancing its case through an unauthorised person; and (d) an eleventh-hour witness substitution to “cure” that defect, causing prejudice. If WS2 is admitted, the Defendant seeks an adjournment with the Claimant to pay costs thrown away; if excluded, the Defendant seeks costs of and caused by the application.
Authorities• ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, [98]
• Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (CC appeal, Oxford, 2016, B9GF0A9E)
• Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (CC appeal, 2017)
• Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (CC appeal, 2023)
• Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (CC appeal, 2023), [27]–[28]
• Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) (E7GM9W44)
• CPMS v Akande (2024) (K0DP5J30)
Statute/Rules: PoFA 2012 Sch 4 (esp. 9(2)(a), 9(2)(f)); CPR 3.4(2)(a), 16.4(1)(a), 27.9, 27.14(2)(g); PD 16 (interest particulars); Civil Evidence Act 1995 s.4; Legal Services Act 2007 ss.12, 14 and Sch.2; Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
4. 4. The Claimant will not attend (CPR 27.9) and no witness of fact is available. The statement is signed by a ‘Legal Assistant’ claiming conduct of the action ‘subject to supervision’. Conduct of litigation is a reserved activity (LSA 2007 ss.12, 14; Sch.2) and supervision does not cure unauthorised conduct: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). I invite the Court to give little weight to hearsay/advocacy not proved by exhibits, require confirmation that the signatory is authorised or exempt, and note the apparent breach when addressing costs (CPR 27.14(2)(g)).
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORD
CLAIM NO: [claim number]
Private Parking Solutions Ltd (Claimant) v [your full name] (Defendant)
SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT
A. INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES
1. This Skeleton supports my Amended Defence and invites the Court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) as disclosing no reasonable grounds, or alternatively to dismiss it. I rely solely on the Claimant’s own materials: its Further Particulars of Claim (“F-PoC”), its paralegal/“Legal Assistant” witness statement (“WS”), and the exhibits (including the Notice to Keeper, “NtK”).
2. The issues are:(1) Keeper liability under PoFA Sch 4 is unavailable: the NtK fails mandatory requirements (no “period of parking” under para 9(2)(a); defective keeper warning under para 9(2)(f)).
(2) In the absence of PoFA compliance, the Claimant must prove I was the driver; it does not.
(3) Breach is not proved on the exhibits (contradictory timings; photos do not evidence “parking”).
(4) The additional £70 is not contractual and is irrecoverable (double recovery).
(5) Interest is not properly particularised (PD 16).
(6) Standing is not proved: the contract is redacted in the very respects needed to show authority.
(7) Weight and conduct: the WS is largely hearsay/advocacy; the Claimant will not attend (CPR 27.9); there is an additional concern about unauthorised conduct of litigation.
B. STRIKE-OUT: PLEADINGS DEFECTIVE EVEN AFTER A “SECOND CHANCE”
3. The original PoC did not disclose a cause of action. The Court afforded the Claimant a lifeline by directing F-PoC. Despite that indulgence, the F-PoC remains non-compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a): it still does not set out a concise statement of material facts establishing liability (including a coherent PoFA route, a pleaded driver case if PoFA fails, or a contractual basis for the £70).
4. Persuasive authorities support strike-out where particulars remain inadequate despite an opportunity to cure (e.g. Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023); CPMS v Akande (2024)).
C. POfA NON-COMPLIANCE: KEEPER LIABILITY FAILS
5. The Claimant elects to pursue me as keeper under PoFA. Strict compliance is required. The NtK states only a single timestamp and no “period of parking”, contrary to para 9(2)(a). Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) confirms that a single instant does not suffice; there must be a period of parking.
6. The NtK’s keeper warning departs from para 9(2)(f) by conflating payment and driver-naming and not mirroring the prescribed invitation/warning. Having elected PoFA, the Claimant must bring itself strictly within it; it has not.
7. Result: keeper liability is unavailable. The claim can only succeed by proving I was the driver; it does not attempt to do so.
D. DRIVER NOT PROVED
8. Where PoFA is not met, the Claimant must prove the defendant was the driver. The persuasive appellate decisions in Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (2017) and VCS v Edward (2023) confirm there is no presumption that keeper = driver. The Claimant adduces no such proof.
E. BREACH NOT PROVED ON THE CLAIMANT’S OWN EXHIBITS
9. The Claimant’s materials are internally inconsistent on time. The NtK fixes a single “incident” time, whereas the WS asserts a different 25-minute window. That contradiction undermines any alleged period of parking and the allegation of breach.
10. The photographs do not evidence “parking” as opposed to a brief stop/manoeuvre. Jopson v Homeguard (2016) (CC appeal) explains that brief stopping is not “parking”.
11. The allegation of “no Blue Badge displayed” is unsupported by a clear, probative windscreen image. The burden of proof lies with the Claimant; it has not discharged it.
F. THE £70 ADD-ON: NOT CONTRACTUAL; DOUBLE RECOVERY
12. The signage wording quoted by the Claimant states a £100 charge for failure to display a Blue Badge; the NtK likewise contains no £70 term. The first reference to £170 appears only in later correspondence. A post-event reminder cannot retrospectively enlarge the contract.
13. The £70 is an impermissible add-on. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 at [98] explains that the charge includes the costs of enforcement and debt recovery; adding a fixed “debt recovery” sum is double recovery.
14. The Claimant’s reliance on trade-body codes to justify the £70 is muddled and misdated (including reference to a code adopted after the 2023 event and a different ATA than named on the NtK). A code cannot invent a term that was not part of the contract.
G. INTEREST NOT PARTICULARISED
15. The F-PoC pleads a figure and daily rate but gives no start date or calculation basis, contrary to PD 16. The pleading remains defective.
H. STANDING NOT PROVED
16. The contract exhibit is redacted such that the identity/role of the signatory and the status of the counter-party are concealed. The Court cannot verify a grant of authority to issue PCNs and to litigate in the operator’s own name. The Claimant is put to strict proof; little weight should attach to a document that hides the very matters it is tendered to prove.
I. WEIGHT, NON-ATTENDANCE, AND UNAUTHORISED CONDUCT
17. The Claimant will not attend (CPR 27.9). Its WS is signed by a “Legal Assistant” who claims “conduct of the action subject to supervision”. Conduct of litigation is a reserved activity (Legal Services Act 2007, ss.12, 14; Sch.2). Supervision does not cure unauthorised conduct: Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). I invite the Court to: (i) give little weight to hearsay/advocacy not proved by exhibits (Civil Evidence Act 1995, s.4; CPR 32.1 powers apply on small claims); (ii) require confirmation that the signatory is authorised or exempt; and (iii) note the apparent breach when addressing costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
J. RELIEF SOUGHT
18. On the Claimant’s own materials: (i) PoFA is not complied with; (ii) the driver is not proved; (iii) breach is not proved; (iv) the £70 add-on is not contractual; (v) interest is not particularised; and (vi) standing is not proved. The Court is invited to:(1) Strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a); or
(2) Dismiss the claim; and
(3) Make a modest costs order for unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g) given the defective pleadings despite a second chance, contradictory materials, non-attendance of any witness of fact, and the concerns under the LSA 2007 highlighted above.
Authorities• ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, [98]
• Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (CC appeal, Oxford, 2016, B9GF0A9E)
• Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (CC appeal, 2017)
• Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (CC appeal, 2023)
• Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (CC appeal, 2023), [27]–[28]
• Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) (E7GM9W44)
• CPMS v Akande (2024) (K0DP5J30)
Statute/Rules: PoFA 2012 Sch 4 (esp. 9(2)(a), 9(2)(f)); CPR 3.4(2)(a), 16.4(1)(a), 27.9, 27.14(2)(g); PD 16 (interest particulars); Civil Evidence Act 1995 s.4; Legal Services Act 2007 ss.12, 14 and Sch.2; Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORDClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
WITNESS STATEMENT
1. I am the Defendant and a litigant in person. I rely on my Amended Defence. I deliberately adduce no evidence of my own. What follows is drawn entirely from the Claimant’s Further Particulars of Claim, the paralegal’s witness statement, and the Claimant’s exhibits (including the Notice to Keeper).
2. The original Particulars of Claim did not disclose a proper cause of action. The court afforded the Claimant a lifeline and ordered Further Particulars. Despite that indulgence, the Further Particulars still fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because they do not set out a concise statement of material facts establishing liability.
3. As a litigant in person I have been put to disproportionate and avoidable time and effort by a professionally represented serial litigant. Even after being given a second chance, the Claimant has served a pleading that remains defective and a witness statement that largely rehashes the same shortcomings.
4. The Claimant has given notice under CPR 27.9 that it will not attend. No witness of fact is available for questioning. The paralegal’s statement is hearsay and contains advocacy and commentary. I ask the Court to place little weight on assertions that are not proved by the exhibits.
5. The Claimant elected to pursue keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Strict compliance is required. The Notice to Keeper states only a single timestamp and no period of parking, so it does not satisfy PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(a). This point was confirmed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) at paras 27–28; I rely on that authority as set out in my Skeleton Argument.
6. The paralegal’s statement then asserts a different timeline, alleging a 25-minute duration with different times. That contradicts the Notice to Keeper. The Claimant’s own materials are inconsistent on time and duration and cannot establish a breach.
7. The photographs relied upon do not prove a period of parking. At most they show a brief stationary interval consistent with manoeuvring. They do not evidence parking for any duration. See Jopson v Homeguard (2016) (stopping briefly for a legitimate purpose ≠ parking); full reference in my Skeleton.
8. The allegation of failing to display a Blue Badge is not proved. There is no clear, probative image of the windscreen showing that no badge was displayed. The burden rests on the Claimant; it has not been discharged on its own exhibits.
9. The Claimant seeks to add £70 to the £100 charge. The signage wording quoted by the Claimant refers only to a £100 charge for failure to display a badge. The Notice to Keeper also makes no mention of any £70. The first reference to £170 appears only in later correspondence. A later reminder cannot retrospectively enlarge the contract. The extra £70 is not part of the contract and is irrecoverable; see ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 at [98], per my Skeleton.
10. The Claimant’s reliance on trade body codes to justify the £70 is muddled and misdated. Its own Notice to Keeper names one trade body, while later documents invoke another and refer to a code dated after the 2023 event. A later or different code cannot create a term that did not exist at the time.
11. Interest is not properly particularised. The Further Particulars do not identify the start date or show the calculation to the pleaded figure. That remains defective.
12. Standing is not proved. The contract produced is redacted so that the identity and authority of the signatory and the status of the counterparty are concealed. The Court cannot verify any grant of authority to issue charges or to sue in the operator’s own name on the version served.
13. The Notice to Keeper’s keeper-warning wording does not mirror the statutory invitation and warning required by paragraph 9(2)(f). It conflates payment and driver-naming and does not satisfy PoFA. Having elected to rely on PoFA, the Claimant must strictly comply. It has not.
14. The Claimant has not identified the driver and has not complied with PoFA; I rely on Excel v Smith (2017) and VCS v Edward (2023) as set out in my Skeleton.
15. The paralegal’s statement adds legal submissions and gratuitous, ad hominem aspersions about my understanding. The deponent does not know me. Such speculation under a Statement of Truth is improper and should be disregarded. A professionally represented claimant should narrow the issues; instead, its materials have expanded them and wasted court and party time.
16. On the Claimant’s own materials there is no proved breach, no compliant route to keeper liability, no contractual basis for the £70, no properly pleaded interest, and no proved standing. The claim discloses no reasonable grounds and should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a). In the alternative, it should be dismissed.
17. Given the Claimant’s decision not to attend and the manner in which its case has been advanced—defective pleadings despite a second chance, inconsistent timelines, hearsay presented as “witness” evidence, and reliance on documents that do not prove the alleged breach—I invite the Court to consider a modest costs order for unreasonable conduct 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:
does it mean I have to go through another mediation process?
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Private Parking Solutions Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. This is the Defendant’s Amended Defence submitted in response to the Claimant’s Further Particulars of Claim, as ordered by District Judge Newman. The Defendant denies liability in full and maintains that the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action.
2. The Defendant requests that the claim be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) as the Amended Particulars of Claim (PoC) remain defective and fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
3. The PoC fail to particularise statutory interest, contrary to CPR PD 16.4(2), as the Claimant has not stated the date from which interest is calculated or how the sum has been reached.
4. The PoC do not specify whether the Defendant is pursued as the driver or keeper, which is an abuse of process.
5. No contractual breach occurred. The Claimant’s evidence only shows the Defendant’s vehicle reversing to exit the car park, with no evidence of parking. Stopping briefly does not constitute parking (Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E). The Defendant was momentarily stopping in the car park due to attending an appointment with their wife and was in the process of leaving when the images were taken. The Claimant’s own evidence fails to show any period of parking. The Defendant will provide further evidence at the appropriate stage regarding the lack of available patient parking and the wider parking issues at the site.
6. The PoC allege failure to display a Blue Badge but provide no evidence to support this claim. The burden of proof is on the Claimant.
7. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It fails to meet PoFA 9(2)(e), does not specify the required period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)), and was not served within the statutory timeframe (PoFA 9(4)(b)). The Claimant has not identified the driver and cannot hold the Defendant liable. (Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith [2017], VCS v Edward [2023]).
8. The Claimant lacks standing to bring this claim. They have not proven landowner authority and rely on a redacted contract, which is insufficient. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of:(a) A valid, enforceable contract.
(b) The signatory’s authority to enter into the agreement.
(c) The right to issue PCNs and commence legal action.
9. If an unredacted contract is not provided, the claim should be struck out.
10. The PoC are signed by a paralegal with no direct knowledge of the facts. Under CPR 22.1(6) and PD 22, a legal representative may only sign a statement of truth if they have verified its contents.
11. The Claimant has unlawfully increased the charge from £100 to £170, despite no contractual provision for this sum. This attempt at double recovery is contrary to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which held that enforcement costs are included within the parking charge itself. The DLUHC's draft impact assessment (July 2023) estimates debt recovery costs at only £8.42 per claim, not per PCN, further proving the charge is excessive.
12. The Claimant’s failure to particularise their claim, provide evidence of a breach, demonstrate PoFA compliance, or justify the additional charge renders the claim without merit.
13. The Defendant requests the court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2). If not struck out, the claim should be dismissed due to the failure to establish a contractual breach or keeper liability.
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:
This is super useful. I took few videos and photos at about the same time, but few days after the alleged incident occurred. The videos and photos are available in the case folder.
As you would see, its a busy parking lot. A lot of patients are forced to park on double yellow etc because there is no parking available. I have also taken a snapshot of the parking lot provided by the claimant on page 22 of DEF Further PoC doc. The document shows multiple instances of people parking on places where they shouldn't be parking. The reason for that is the surgery employees park their cars on the same location. There are no dedicated parking for patients. As a result, before you know the parking lot is full, and patients are forced to park on double yellow lines etc. I was there only because my wife had an appointment, and I got caught while backing up and leaving the parking spot safely. The surgery management, instead of solving the problem, gave the parking lot management to PPS. A facebook page and other internet pages are full of complaints from patients about this.
Does it make sense to include the information in my response. Otherwise it looks great.
That won't become due for months. First the defence has to be sent by the CNCB to the claimant and they will acknowledge receipt of it and their intent to continue. After that you will have to complete your Directions Questionnaire and then there will be the waste time mediation phone call. Only after that will it be sent to your local county court where an allocation judge will review the case and make the necessary order. The judge will either strike out the claim, order further details, if necessary or allocate a hearing date. Once the hearing date is set, there will be deadlines for the claimant to pay the hearing fee, usually around a month before the hearing date and a deadline for submitting any witness statements etc.
Just be patient.
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. This is the Defendant’s Amended Defence submitted in response to the Claimant’s Further Particulars of Claim, as ordered by District Judge Newman. The Defendant continues to deny liability for the entirety of the claim and maintains that the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action.
2. As a preliminary matter, the Defendant requests that the claim be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) as the Amended Particulars of Claim (PoC) remain defective and do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
3. The PoC fail to properly particularise the statutory interest claimed, as required by CPR PD 16.4(2). The Claimant has not provided the date from which interest is calculated or a clear explanation of how the sum has been reached.
4. The Claimant’s PoC do not specify whether the Defendant is pursued as the driver or the keeper, contrary to the requirement that a claimant should not plead alternative causes of action. This is an abuse of process.
5. The Claimant’s evidence does not support the assertion that the Defendant breached any contractual terms. The only images provided show the vehicle in the process of reversing in order to exit the car park, with the driver still inside. The total time span of the images is 25 seconds. This is not parking by any reasonable definition.
6. The PoC claim that the Defendant failed to display a Blue Badge but fail to provide any evidence that a Blue Badge was not displayed. The burden of proof rests with the Claimant to establish that a contravention occurred, and they have failed to do so.
7. The Claimant has attempted to increase the charge from £100 to £170, but there is no mention of this additional charge in the contractual signage. The first reference to the £70 increase appears in a reminder letter five weeks after the alleged contravention. Since the contractual terms at the time of the alleged event did not include provision for this sum, it is not lawfully recoverable.
8. The PoC have been signed by a paralegal rather than a person with direct knowledge of the facts. Under CPR 22.1(6) and PD 22, a legal representative may only sign a statement of truth if they have verified the contents personally. The Claimant’s statement of truth hearsay and may therefore be defective, raising concerns about the validity of the claim.
9. If the court does not strike out the claim, the Defendant submits that no contractual breach could have occurred.
10. The Defendant did not park in the location as alleged. The images provided by the Claimant show that the vehicle was moving and occupied. There is no evidence that it was ever stationary for long enough to constitute parking. In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, it was held that stopping briefly does not constitute parking.
11. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the Claimant does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It fails to include the wording required by PoFA 9(2)(e), does not specify the period of parking as required by PoFA 9(2)(a), and was not served within the statutory timeframe of 14 days required under PoFA 9(4)(b).
12. The Claimant has not provided any evidence that the Defendant was the driver. Under CPR 16.4(1)(a), the Claimant must clearly state the basis of the claim, but the PoC do not specify whether the Defendant is pursued as the driver or the keeper. In the persuasive appellate decisions of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (2017) and VCS v Edward (2023), the court held that a claimant must prove that the defendant was the driver if PoFA compliance is not met.
13. Since the Claimant has failed to identify the Defendant as the driver and has also failed to comply with PoFA, the Defendant cannot be held liable for this charge.
14. The Claimant has failed to provide proof that they have authority to bring this claim. The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant is the landowner and puts them to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowner granting them authority to issue parking charges and commence legal proceedings in their own name. In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, it was held that a parking operator must have clear landowner authority to enforce parking charges.
15. The Claimant’s failure to provide clear contractual terms, evidence of a breach, proof of PoFA compliance, or proper particulars regarding the sums claimed renders the claim wholly without merit.
16. The Defendant respectfully requests that the court strike out the claim in its entirety under CPR 3.4(2). If the court does not strike out the claim, the Defendant requests that it be dismissed due to the failure to establish a contractual breach or keeper liability.
17. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to demonstrate that they have the legal right to issue parking charges and commence legal proceedings in their own name. In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, the Court of Appeal ruled that a private parking operator must have clear and specific landowner authority to enforce parking charges.
18. A contract where the identity and authority of the signatory are unknown is legally defective and cannot be relied upon as proof of standing. The redactions make it impossible to verify whether the contract grants the Claimant the necessary rights to issue and enforce parking charges.
19. Given that the Claimant has failed to provide an unredacted copy of the contract, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that:(a) The contract is valid and enforceable.
(b) The signatory had the necessary authority to enter into the agreement.
(c) The contract specifically grants the Claimant the right to issue PCNs and initiate legal proceedings in their own name.
20. If the Claimant fails to provide a fully unredacted contract proving landowner authority, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has no legal standing to pursue this claim and that the claim should be struck out or dismissed
21. The Claimant has provided the Defendant with a redacted version of the alleged landowner contract, removing the signature, name, and position of the signatory. There is no confirmation as to whether the copy submitted to the court is similarly redacted.
22. The Defendant submits that this redacted contract is insufficient to establish the Claimant’s legal standing to bring this claim. The identity and authority of the signatory are crucial to determining whether the Claimant has the right to issue and enforce parking charges.
23. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to demonstrate that they have a valid and enforceable contract with the landowner or their authorised agent. A contract where the identity and authority of the signatory are unknown is legally defective and cannot be relied upon as proof of standing.
24. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the contract is valid and that the signatory had the necessary authority to enter into the agreement. The Defendant further requests confirmation from the court as to whether the version provided to the court is redacted in the same manner as the version disclosed to the Defendant.
25. The Claimant's failure to provide the Defendant with the full, unredacted contract while relying on it as evidence is a breach of CPR 31.6 (standard disclosure) and CPR 31.14 (inspection of documents referred to in a statement of case). This selective disclosure prejudices the Defendant’s ability to fairly challenge the Claimant’s legal standing and amounts to unreasonable conduct.
26. If the Claimant fails to provide a fully unredacted contract proving landowner authority, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has no legal standing to pursue this claim and that it should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) or dismissed.
27. The Claimant has added a £70 debt recovery charge despite no mention of this fee in the contractual agreement. This contradicts ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court confirmed that enforcement costs are included within the parking charge itself.
28. In Beavis, the court ruled that the parking charge was set at a level that incorporated the costs of enforcement and debt recovery. Paragraph 98 of the judgment explicitly states that the charge includes “the costs of construction, maintenance and enforcement” as well as “the costs of chasing up non-payers.”
29. The Claimant’s attempt to impose an additional £70 fee is an attempt at double recovery, seeking to reclaim enforcement costs separately when the Beavis ruling confirms that such costs were already accounted for within the parking charge.
30. Furthermore, the Claimant has provided no evidence that this charge was genuinely incurred or that it represents a contractual loss. The Private Parking Code of Practice: Draft Impact Assessment (DLUHC, July 2023) estimates the actual unit cost per successful debt recovery at only £8.42, further demonstrating that this charge is arbitrary and disproportionate.
31. The Defendant submits that this £70 charge is not a legitimate recoverable cost and invites the court to strike it out as an abuse of process.
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:
Even more to add to the defence. I will respond over the next few days with a suggested defence. Far too many points to cover in a quick post. I already have over 30 paragraphs for the defence.
@GrowthHacker, the landowner contract provided with the amended PoC has some redactions on it as shown below. Are those redactions yours or have they been redacted by the claimant?
(https://i.imgur.com/krSBOBN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Hao6cVn.png)
Thinking aloud - (and caveat, I know the above aren't necessarily in any particular order) in terms of the order of the points for the amended defence, I'd be minded to lead* with:I say this on the basis that these are points that would be strong defence points even if PPS' PoC were otherwise perfect, and even if their notice had been PoFA compliant etc. (the fact that there are others issues to highlight then strengthens your position further)
- No evidence of the failure to display a Blue Badge.
- Only photographic evidence of vehicle stationary for 2 minutes.
* aside from any matters raised as preliminary issues
(https://i.imgur.com/z7bQWkm.png)Why have you deleted the original claim form? Are PPS still being represented by Gladstones?
The DJ ordered PPS to serve further PoC by 18th February, which they have compiled with. You now have until 18th March to submit an amended defence. I will review the PoC they have submitted and once I have had a chance to carefully review them, I will come back with your amended defence.
Do I need to submit updated defence or can I argue on the day in the court?
I was clicking on links in earlier posts that referred to the claim form but they all now only show the new order.Apologies for deleting them. I have restored them.
(https://i.imgur.com/z7bQWkm.png)Why have you deleted the original claim form? Are PPS still being represented by Gladstones?
The DJ ordered PPS to serve further PoC by 18th February, which they have compiled with. You now have until 18th March to submit an amended defence. I will review the PoC they have submitted and once I have had a chance to carefully review them, I will come back with your amended defence.
Do I need to submit updated defence or can I argue on the day in the court?
Why have you deleted the original claim form? Are PPS still being represented by Gladstones?
The DJ ordered PPS to serve further PoC by 18th February, which they have compiled with. You now have until 18th March to submit an amended defence. I will review the PoC they have submitted and once I have had a chance to carefully review them, I will come back with your amended defence.
Why have you deleted the original claim form? Are PPS still being represented by Gladstones?
The DJ ordered PPS to serve further PoC by 18th February, which they have compiled with. You now have until 18th March to submit an amended defence. I will review the PoC they have submitted and once I have had a chance to carefully review them, I will come back with your amended defence.
However, I see that for few other cases it has been advised to attached the following documents:
- Draft defence order
- PM v Akande transcript
- CEL v Chan transcript
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
The Court Manager
Civil National Business Centre
4th Floor, St Katharine’s House
21-27 St Katharine’s Street
Northampton
NN1 2LH
Claim Number: [Insert Claim Number]
Claimant: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
Defendant: [Your Name]
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Request for Strike Out or Alternatively Compliance with Draft Order in Response to N180 Directions Questionnaire
I write concerning the above-referenced claim, for which I have received a Notice of Directions Questionnaire (N180). Due to the vague and deficient nature of the Particulars of Claim (PoC), I have been unable to plead a full defence. Therefore, I respectfully request that the court considers striking out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) on the grounds that the PoC fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), as they do not disclose a cause of action or provide a concise statement of fact.
Alternatively, should the court decide not to strike out the claim, I request that the Claimant be ordered to comply with the attached draft order, which seeks further and better particulars of claim.
To support my application, I enclose transcripts of two persuasive appeal cases:• Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44]
• CPMS v Akande (2024) [K0DP5J30]
Both cases involved claims that were struck out due to similarly insufficient particulars.
I trust that the attached documents will assist the court in its assessment and in issuing appropriate case management directions.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
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.
As above. Don't rush it. Just don't miss any deadlines. Give it a day or so and then send the defence.Great, Thanks!! Will do. Just to confirm, I don't need to send AoS by an email provided while submitting it. Only my defence needs to go in the email, correct?
9(2) The notice must—
(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
Can you also upload the back of the NtK please.
Also, you should redact the claim number on the N1SDT form and, ideally, your name on the NtK and the two Gladstones letters you have shown us.
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
[Claimant's Full Name]
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
2. 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).
3. 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 16.7.5;
(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 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 exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.
4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.
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:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the Particulars of Claim and the defence
AND the court being of the view that there is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4.
It is Ordered that:
1. Unless the Claimant do, within 14 days of service of this order, file and serve at court a further Particulars of Claim supported by a statement of truth which complies with CPR 16.4 and which sets out:(i) the precise and concise factual allegations it makes against the Defendant and
(ii) the factual or legal [or both] basis of its claim and
(iii) the evidence relied on that the Defendant was the driver;
(iv)the evidence relied on that all the requirements of PoFA 14(2)(a) were complied with; and
(v)exactly how its claim is calculated (if there is a claim for a fixed sum)
then the claim shall be struck out.
2. For the avoidance of doubt the further Particulars of Claim must:(a) refer to and have attached to them (clearly marked "A") a copy of the contract (or contracts) between the claimant and defendant relied on.
(b) 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.
(c) have attached to them (clearly marked "B") a copy of each of the PCNs which forms the basis of this claim.
(d) must state by what method each of the PCNs was first brought to the attention of the defendant. For example, attaching it to the defendant's vehicle.
(e) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
(f) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, set out (i) the full postal address of where the breach took place and (ii) the precise date and time of the alleged breach and (iii) exactly how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was incurred.
(g) in respect of each alleged breach of contract, must state whether the defendant is sued as the driver of the vehicle or the keeper or the hirer of the vehicle.
(h) not plead that the defendant is sued in the alternative as the driver of the vehicle or as the keeper of the vehicle.
(i) state clearly whether the claim is brought under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and specify whether the defendant is pursued as the hirer or keeper of the vehicle. If the defendant is pursued as the hirer, the claimant must provide evidence of compliance with PoFA, including copies of the Notice to Hirer, the Notice to Keeper, and the relevant documents mandated in PoFA paragraph 14(2)(a).
(j) must explain the factual or legal (or both) basis of the claim for damages.
(k) set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest started running.
3. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by an application on notice which must be filed at this Court no more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
WE don't need to see any debt collector letters. An LoC is a very specific letter that you will have received from Gladstones that actually said something like "Letter of Claim" or Letter Before County Court Claim" or something similar. It would have given 30 days to pay not the usual 14 days when it is just debt collector. It would have mentioned that if payment was not received within 30 days a claim would be issued without further notice.
An LoC is required as part of the Pre Action Protocol. If you received one, please show only that. If you didn't receive one, then that is something to add to the defence.
Also, please remove the redaction in the PoC except for the VRM and/or the PCN number. Everything else in those PoC needs to be visible to us.
Can you also show us a copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) received? You mention that it was originally for "parking in a disabled access bay without displaying blue badge, is that correct? You state you only reversed into the bay and then left immediately. What evidence did they have to prove you were actually parked there?