You can now seek your costs for the strike-out (reasonable preparation time, postage, copying, etc.) as per CPR 44.2 and CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.
Keep the envelope showing the postmark (if there is one) and note the date you received the order — that sets the seven-day countdown for any set-aside, should the claimant try (unlikely). After that period expires without an application notice from the claimant, write to the court asking for confirmation that the strike-out is final and requesting a summary assessment of your costs.
7 days after the date of the order (add 2 days for service), send your schedule of costs as an attachment by email to the court (you will have to find their email using HMCTS Court Finder) and you CC Moorside Legal at help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and yourself as follows:
Subject: Claim no. [XXXX] – UKCPS Ltd v [Defendant] – Order striking out claim dated [date of order] – request for costs
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write as the Defendant in the above matter.
By General Form of Judgment or Order dated [date on the order], the Court ordered that, pursuant to CPR 3.4, the Claim is struck out. The Order further provided that any party wishing to apply to set aside, vary or discharge it must do so within seven days of service.
I received the Order on [date you received it]. The seven-day period for any application has now expired on [calculated expiry date], and I have not been served with any application by the Claimant, nor have I received any indication from the Court that such an application has been filed.
In those circumstances, I understand that the strike-out stands and that the proceedings are now at an end. I respectfully invite the Court to confirm that the strike-out is final and that there are no further hearings listed.
I also seek my costs of and occasioned by the Claimant’s conduct leading to the strike-out. A Schedule of Costs is attached to this email. I submit that the Claimant’s repeated failure to plead a coherent cause of action and failure to comply with the Court’s Order of 3 October 2025 amount to unreasonable conduct. I therefore ask the Court to summarily assess my costs, pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) (if and in so far as the small claims track applies) and/or CPR 44.2 and the Court’s general case management powers pre-allocation.
I would be grateful if this request could be dealt with on the papers, if the Court considers that appropriate. If the Court requires any further information from me (including a brief witness statement exhibiting relevant correspondence and orders), I will provide it promptly.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Your address]
[Your email]
Defendant
Attachment: Schedule of Costs – Defendant
And edit/amend this schedule of costs as necessary:
Claim no: [XXXX]
Parties: UKCPS Ltd (Claimant) v [Defendant] (Defendant)
Hearing: Claim struck out on paper by Order dated [date of strike-out order]
Track: Small claims (costs sought under CPR 27.14(2)(g)) and/or CPR 44.2
COSTS SCHEDULE
1. Litigant in Person time
The Defendant is a litigant in person and claims time costs under CPR 46.5 at the applicable litigant in person rate of £24 per hour.
1.1. Considering and responding to the original defective Particulars of Claim; preparing initial Defence focused on CPR 16.4 and PoC defects
Time: [X.X] hours
Subtotal: £[X.X × 24]
1.2. Considering the Court’s Order dated 3 October 2025 and the Claimant’s subsequent “Further Particulars of Claim” served on 20 October 2025; identifying non-compliance and PoFA/signage defects
Time: [X.X] hours
Subtotal: £[X.X × 24]
1.3. Drafting correspondence to the Court inviting the Court to give effect to the automatic strike-out and addressing the Claimant’s non-compliance and conduct
Time: [X.X] hours
Subtotal: £[X.X × 24]
1.4. Preparing this Schedule of Costs and associated administrative work
Time: [X.X] hours
Subtotal: £[X.X × 24]
Total time claimed: [Total hours] hours
Total time costs: £[Total time costs]
2. Postage, copying and incidental expenses
2.1. Printing and copying of Defence, exhibits, and correspondence
Estimated pages: [number] at [e.g. 10p] per page
Subtotal: £[ ]
2.2. Postage of documents to the Court and to the Claimant (Royal Mail)
Subtotal: £[ ]
Total disbursements: £[ ]
3. Total costs claimed
Total time costs: £[ ]
Total disbursements: £[ ]
Grand total: £[ ]
4. Basis of costs sought
The Defendant seeks these costs on the basis that the Claimant has acted unreasonably in:
4.1. Issuing a claim with defective and opaque Particulars of Claim that did not disclose a coherent cause of action.
4.2. Failing to comply with the Court’s Order dated 3 October 2025, which gave clear and final directions as to what was required and warned that non-compliance would result in a strike-out.
4.3. Necessitating the Defendant’s time and effort in highlighting the continuing non-compliance, leading to the claim being struck out under CPR 3.4.
In all the circumstances, the Defendant submits that it is just for the Court to make an order for costs in the attached sum, to be summarily assessed on the papers.
Signed: [Your name]
Date: [date]
For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:
“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
So, consider a few things... The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is simply an invoice for a breach of terms and conditions of a "contract" between the driver and UKCPS. The "contract" is the terms and condition signs at the location. The driver doesn't have to actually read the signs but as long as there enough signs and they adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge for breaching those terms, the "contract" is entered into by 'conduct'. The 'conduct' being the action of actually parking there.
Now, here is the problem... If the driver is not a resident of a property at the location, the capability of the sign to form a contractual relationship depends on whether the sign makes a clear and specific offer to non-residents or prohibits their parking.
In the image you provided, the sign specifically states:
"Parking is only permitted for residents of Mak Court. No parking is permitted for any other vehicles for any length of time."
This wording is important because it suggests the following:
1. Nature of the Offer
The sign does not extend an offer to non-residents. Instead, it expressly prohibits parking by non-residents. This means that a non-resident would not be able to accept the offer because no offer is made to them in the first place.
In contract law, if there is no offer, there can be no acceptance, and therefore no contract.
2. Prohibitive Notice
The sign is a prohibitive notice, rather than an invitation to enter into a contract. Prohibitive notices are used to indicate that no permission is granted for certain actions (in this case, parking by non-residents).
In general, courts have found that prohibitive notices are not capable of forming a contract. For a contract to be formed, there must be an offer for the individual to accept. If parking is explicitly prohibited for certain individuals, they cannot be deemed to have accepted an offer that doesn't exist.
If non-residents park in violation of the prohibition, this should be a trespass issue, not a contractual issue, which would require a separate legal basis for claiming damages (typically limited to actual losses).
3. Case Law Support
In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court made it clear that a sign offering parking on certain terms could form a contract. However, that was in the context of a sign offering parking on specific conditions (e.g., time limits). In contrast, a prohibitive notice does not offer parking to non-residents; therefore, there can be no contractual relationship formed with a non-resident.
Conclusion:
• For a resident: The sign could form a contractual relationship because it offers parking to residents under certain conditions (e.g., they must park in accordance with the rules).
• For a non-resident: The sign cannot form a contract because it explicitly prohibits parking by non-residents. Since no offer is made to non-residents, there can be no acceptance, and thus no contract.
In this scenario, as a non-resident parked and then received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the argument is that the sign does not offer parking to them at all, and thus no contract could have been formed. Any charge would need to be pursued under trespass law rather than as a breach of contract.
Thanks b789 for raising a valid argument.
My reply would be no contravention occurred for which a PCN is issued. The driver did not form any contract to be issued a PCN for parking.
It's a matter of trespassing rather than a breach of contract.
Is there any old draft similar to this situation which I can use to reply.
Thanks for your help.
So, consider a few things... The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is simply an invoice for a breach of terms and conditions of a "contract" between the driver and UKCPS. The "contract" is the terms and condition signs at the location. The driver doesn't have to actually read the signs but as long as there enough signs and they adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge for breaching those terms, the "contract" is entered into by 'conduct'. The 'conduct' being the action of actually parking there.
Now, here is the problem... If the driver is not a resident of a property at the location, the capability of the sign to form a contractual relationship depends on whether the sign makes a clear and specific offer to non-residents or prohibits their parking.
In the image you provided, the sign specifically states:
"Parking is only permitted for residents of Mak Court. No parking is permitted for any other vehicles for any length of time."
This wording is important because it suggests the following:
1. Nature of the Offer
The sign does not extend an offer to non-residents. Instead, it expressly prohibits parking by non-residents. This means that a non-resident would not be able to accept the offer because no offer is made to them in the first place.
In contract law, if there is no offer, there can be no acceptance, and therefore no contract.
2. Prohibitive Notice
The sign is a prohibitive notice, rather than an invitation to enter into a contract. Prohibitive notices are used to indicate that no permission is granted for certain actions (in this case, parking by non-residents).
In general, courts have found that prohibitive notices are not capable of forming a contract. For a contract to be formed, there must be an offer for the individual to accept. If parking is explicitly prohibited for certain individuals, they cannot be deemed to have accepted an offer that doesn't exist.
If non-residents park in violation of the prohibition, this should be a trespass issue, not a contractual issue, which would require a separate legal basis for claiming damages (typically limited to actual losses).
3. Case Law Support
In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court made it clear that a sign offering parking on certain terms could form a contract. However, that was in the context of a sign offering parking on specific conditions (e.g., time limits). In contrast, a prohibitive notice does not offer parking to non-residents; therefore, there can be no contractual relationship formed with a non-resident.
Conclusion:
• For a resident: The sign could form a contractual relationship because it offers parking to residents under certain conditions (e.g., they must park in accordance with the rules).
• For a non-resident: The sign cannot form a contract because it explicitly prohibits parking by non-residents. Since no offer is made to non-residents, there can be no acceptance, and thus no contract.
In this scenario, as a non-resident parked and then received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the argument is that the sign does not offer parking to them at all, and thus no contract could have been formed. Any charge would need to be pursued under trespass law rather than as a breach of contract.