Sadly, your delay in submitting a WS has put you in a precarious position. You could have easily gotten away if you'd submitted a WS very soon after you returned from your trip. However, leaving it for almost two weeks to get this done is not good.
Here is how you can best try to salvage your predicament...
1) What to bring
• 2 hard copies of: your WS, Relief-from-sanctions note (1 page), and a Draft Order (relief granted; WS admitted; costs reserved).
• Proofs: passport/boarding pass showing you were abroad until 9 Sept; court email confirming you obtained the NoA on 22 Sept.
2) What to say first (verbatim script, 45–60 seconds)
“Judge, preliminarily I apply orally for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 so I can rely on my witness statement.
• I was abroad until 9 September; the claimant’s bundle arrived during my absence and I first saw it on my return.
• I did not receive the Notice of Allocation and only obtained a copy from the court on 22 September, after which I acted immediately.
• I apologise for the late service. Admitting my statement will not derail today; the claimant has a copy. It assists the Court to deal with the real issues fairly.
If the Court prefers, I have a 1-page note and a short draft order.”
(Hand over your 1-page relief note and draft order.)
3) If the judge asks why no N244
“Watford advised an N244. With the hearing tomorrow, a paper determination was unlikely to be listed in time. I’ve therefore sought the Court’s discretion today, with apologies, and I’m ready to answer any questions.”
4) Possible outcomes & exactly what to ask next
A) If relief is granted (best case):
Proceed to merits using your WS. Close with: “I invite strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a); alternatively dismissal on the merits. Costs: my fixed loss of earnings (up to £95), travel/parking, and—given the claimant’s conduct—CPR 27.14(2)(g) if appropriate.”
B) If relief is refused but judge allows oral submissions:
Say: “
Thank you. I’ll make short oral submissions based on the exhibits the claimant relies on.” Then hit the four core points (below).
C) If judge wants time but won’t adjourn fully:Ask for 15–20 minutes reading time to level the field. If still refused, proceed with oral points.
5) Your four core oral points (no WS needed)Keep each to ~20–30 seconds.
1. Pleadings failure“The Particulars of Claim don’t comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a): no material facts, no precise term said to be breached, no period of parking, and no clear basis (driver/keeper). A witness statement is not a substitute for compliant pleadings. Primary relief sought: strike-out; alternative: an unless order for proper particulars.”
2. No contract formed (facts from their own bundle)“Their images show the vehicle for about one minute only. The signage they rely upon states ‘NO PARKING ON YELLOW LINES’—that’s forbidding, not an offer. There is no contractual offer to accept; if anything, only landowner trespass (nominal damages) which hasn’t been pleaded.”
3. Consideration period (industry rule they cite or court can note)“Under the then BPA Code §13.1, a minimum 5-minute consideration period was required so a driver could read terms and leave if they chose not to park. On their own evidence (~1 minute), a contract could not have bound the driver.”
4. No keeper liability (PoFA)“They haven’t identified the driver. Schedule 4 PoFA requires a period of parking; a momentary observation is insufficient. The persuasive appellate decision in Brennan v Premier Parking Services (2023) confirms that a period must be specified. Keeper liability therefore does not arise.”
6) Unauthorised “conduct of litigation” (use for weight and costs, not to derail)Only raise after the merits (or when discussing costs).
“Finally, the claimant’s deponent (a Legal Assistant) states she ‘has conduct of this action’. Conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity (LSA 2007 ss.12, 14). The High Court in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) confirms unqualified staff cannot conduct litigation, even under supervision. I invite the Court to mark that irregularity, treat the statement with reduced weight, and reflect it in costs.”
7) Relief/costs phrasing (end of hearing)Primary: “
I invite strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).”
Alternative: “
An unless order requiring proper particulars and the unredacted contract (parties, site, term, authority to sue).”
Costs: “
My fixed attendance loss (up to £95), travel/parking. If the Court considers the claimant’s conduct unreasonable, CPR 27.14(2)(g) costs.”
8) If you loseCalmly ask:
“
Respectfully, please record payment within one calendar month to avoid registry entry.”
If relief was refused solely on lateness, consider asking for permission to apply to set aside/appeal if there’s a clear procedural unfairness—keep it measured.
9) Practical tips• Arrive 30–45 minutes early; give your 1-page relief note and draft order to the usher for the judge’s file.
• Be ready to show your passport/itinerary and the 22 Sept court email.
• Keep tone measured; avoid blame for the claimant’s service (their letter is 28 Aug).
Here is a one page note to hand to the judge for relief from sanctions:
Claim: [Claimant] v [Defendant] — Claim No.: [ ] — Hearing: [25/09/2025]
Application (oral): Relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 and permission to rely on the Defendant’s witness statement and exhibits served on [date served].
Apology & chronology (facts):
• I was out of the country until [9 September 2025].
• The Claimant’s WS bundle (cover letter 28 August 2025) arrived while I was away; I first saw it on [9 September 2025].
• I did not receive the Notice of Allocation and therefore did not know the WS deadline; I obtained a copy from the Court on [22 September 2025].
• I have acted promptly since then. I apologise to the Court and to the Claimant.
Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906:
1. Serious/significant: Late, but admitting my WS won’t derail today; the Claimant has it.
2. Good reason: Absence abroad; no Notice of Allocation received; NoA obtained [22/09/2025] → immediate action.
3. All the circumstances: I’ve acted promptly and in good faith. Admission assists the overriding objective (CPR 1.1) so the real issues can be dealt with fairly and proportionately.
Order sought (short draft):
1. The Defendant is granted relief from sanctions (CPR 3.9).
2. The Defendant’s witness statement and exhibits served [date] are admitted for the hearing on [25/09/2025].
3. Costs reserved / no order as to costs.
Proofs available: Passport/boarding pass (return [date]); claimant’s cover letter (28/08/2025); court email confirming NoA provided [22/09/2025].
Also, Oral Points – One-Page Note (if relief is granted; if refused, use as submissions)
A. Pleadings
• CPR 16.4(1)(a): PoC lack material facts, precise term(s), period of parking, clear driver/keeper basis.
• A WS is not a substitute for compliant pleadings. Primary relief: strike-out (CPR 3.4(2)(a)); alternative: unless order for proper particulars.
B. Contract formation (from their exhibits)
• Their images show the vehicle present for ~1 minute only → no period of parking evidenced.
• Signage relied upon: “NO PARKING ON YELLOW LINES” → forbidding, not an offer → no contract.
• BPA Code §13.1 (then in force): minimum 5-minute consideration period to read terms/decide to leave. On their own evidence, no contract could bind the driver.
C. Keeper liability (PoFA Sch. 4)
• Driver not identified. PoFA requires a period of parking; momentary observation/instant images are insufficient.
• Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) (persuasive appeal): a period must be specified; a single instant does not prove parking → no keeper liability.
D. Standing / contract exhibit (GS1)
• Heavily redacted: no site address; parties/dates; authority to litigate; signatory identity/authority.
• Core terms establishing standing cannot be withheld → little/no weight; strict proof required.
• If an unredacted version has been shown only to the Court, request disclosure and time to consider (or exclusion).
E. Conduct of litigation (weight & costs)
• Claimant’s deponent (a Legal Assistant) states she “has conduct of this action.”
• Legal Services Act 2007: conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity (ss.12, 14).
• Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB): unqualified staff may assist but cannot conduct litigation, even if supervised.
• Invite the Court to mark the irregularity, attach reduced weight, and reflect it in costs.
F. Final relief sought
• Strike-out (CPR 3.4(2)(a)); alternatively, unless order for:
– Proper Particulars (terms, breach, period, driver/keeper basis, location/signage particulars);
– Complete contract proving standing (parties, site, term, authority to issue PCNs and litigate, signatory authority).
• Costs: fixed attendance loss (up to £95), travel/parking; 27.14(2)(g) if conduct unreasonable.
Print two copies of each note. Hand the Relief note up at the start; keep the Oral points in front of you as your roadmap.
Once you have filled in any placeholders with the necessary details/dates, you send them as PDF files attached to an email addressed to the court and CC'd to the claimant and yourself. Make sure that every page is numbered (paginated).
This is the detail you must put in the email. It should be addressed to enquiries.watford.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and CC'd to enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk and to yourself.
Subject: URGENT – Relief from Sanctions & Late WS – Claim no.: L1GF6N4R Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd v Maira Munir – Hearing 25/09/2025
Dear Civil Listings Team,
I am the Defendant. I respectfully apply for relief from sanctions and permission to rely on my witness statement and exhibits served today.
• I was out of the country until 9 September 2025. While I was away, the Claimant’s WS bundle (cover letter dated 28 August 2025) was delivered. I first saw it on 9 September 2025.
• I did not receive the Notice of Allocation and therefore did not know the WS deadline. I obtained a copy from the court on 22 September 2025 and have acted promptly since then.
• I apologise for the late service.
Attached: (1) Defendant’s WS (paginated); (2) Relief-from-Sanctions statement (CPR 3.9; Denton); (3) Draft Order; (4) Proof bundle (travel evidence; court email dated 22 Sept).
I have served the Claimant’s solicitors by email at the same time.
Yours faithfully,
Maira Munir, Defendant
[Address] | [Email] | [Mobile]
You then create the following PDFs and include them in the bundle:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORD
Claim No.: L1GF6N4R
Between: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd – Claimant
and
Maira Munir – Defendant
Relief from sanctions (CPR 3.9; Denton v TH White)
1. My witness statement is late against the small-claims timetable, but admitting it will not derail the hearing on 25 Sept 2025. The Claimant has my bundle at the same time as the Court.
2. I was abroad until 9 Sept 2025. The Claimant’s WS bundle (cover letter 28 Aug 2025) arrived during my absence. I did not receive the Notice of Allocation and only obtained a copy on 22 Sept 2025, after which I acted immediately.
3. I have acted promptly and in good faith. My evidence responds to matters first seen on 9 Sept. Granting relief best serves the overriding objective (CPR 1.1) by enabling the Court to deal with the real issues fairly and proportionately.
I apologise to the Court and the Claimant for the late service.
Also, the following draft order:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORD
Claim No.: L1GF6N4R
Between: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd – Claimant
and
Maira Munir – Defendant
DRAFT ORDER
UPON the Defendant’s application for relief from sanctions and permission to rely on late evidence, and upon reading the Defendant’s statement dated [date]:
1. The Defendant is granted relief from sanctions pursuant to CPR 3.9.
2. The Defendant’s witness statement and exhibits served on [date sent] are admitted for the hearing listed on 25 September 2025.
3. Costs reserved/No order as to costs.
Signed: Maira Munir
Defendant
Date: 23 September 2025
Another PDF:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORD
Claim No.: L1GF6N4R
Between: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd – Claimant
and
Maira Munir – Defendant
Certificate of Service
I, Maira Munir, certify that on 23 September 2025 I served the attached witness statement and exhibits, relief-from-sanctions statement, and draft order by email to:
• Court: enquiries.watford.countycourt@justice.gov.uk
• Claimant’s solicitors: enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk
Signed: Maira Munir
Date: 23 September 2025
And finally the WS:
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WATFORD
Claim No.: L1GF6N4R
Between: Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd – Claimant
and
Maira Munir – Defendant
1. I, Maira Munir, of [Address], am the Defendant. I make this witness statement from my own knowledge and belief except where I indicate otherwise, in which case the facts are true to the best of my information and belief and I identify the source.
2. Late service and apology. I apologise to the Court and to the Claimant for serving this statement close to the hearing. I was out of the country until 9 September 2025. While I was away, a package containing the Claimant’s witness statement bundle was delivered. I only became aware of it on my return on 9 September 2025. I did not receive the Notice of Allocation and therefore did not know the witness-statement deadline; I obtained a copy from the Court on 22 September 2025 and have acted promptly since then.
3. I received the Claimant’s witness statement and exhibits on 9 September 2025. This was the first time the Claimant set out factual assertions and documents.
4. My evidence is necessarily confined to responding to what has now been produced. I ask the Court to note that any lack of prior detail is due to the defective pleadings, not any failure on my part. If the Court is minded to admit the Claimant’s late material, I ask that the prejudice to me be taken into account when assessing case management and costs.
Relief from sanctions (CPR 3.9; Denton)
5. This statement is late against the small-claims timetable but admitting it will not derail the hearing. The Claimant has my bundle at the same time as the Court.
6. I was abroad until 9 September 2025 and did not receive the Notice of Allocation. I obtained a copy on 22 September 2025 and acted immediately.
7. I have acted promptly and in good faith. Admitting my evidence best serves the overriding objective so the real issues can be dealt with fairly and proportionately.
8. I am unable to provide a factual narrative of the alleged contravention because the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16. They do not plead the material facts, the contractual terms said to be breached, any period of parking, or a clear legal basis (driver or keeper). I first learned any detail of the allegation when I received the Claimant’s witness-statement material.
Pleadings and case management
9. A witness statement is not a substitute for compliant pleadings. If the Claimant required more space than the MCOL form allows, they could have served separate particulars within 14 days of service of the claim form or applied to amend (CPR 7.4(1); PD 7C §6.1). They did not do so. I ask the Court to treat the PoC as defective and to consider appropriate case-management relief (including CPR 3.4(2)(a)).
10. Insofar as the Claimant relies on CPR 16.5 to criticise my Defence, that rule presupposes compliant particulars. It is not possible to “admit/deny” allegations that were never pleaded with particulars.
Claimant’s witness and nature of their evidence
11. The Claimant’s witness describes herself as a Legal Assistant and states that she “has conduct of this action”. The conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 (s.12 and Sch.2). Carrying on a reserved legal activity when not entitled is an offence under s.14. I do not ask the Court to make any criminal finding, but I record that the witness’s own wording appears to engage s.14 and, at minimum, renders the Claimant’s approach procedurally irregular. I rely on this irregularity when the Court considers case management and costs.
12. Recent High Court authority in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) confirms that unqualified staff may assist but may not themselves conduct litigation—even under supervision. I therefore invite the Court, consistently with Mazur, to attach limited weight to assertions made by an unqualified person purporting to “have conduct” and to reflect that irregular conduct in any costs order. Where the statement proceeds on information and belief, I also note that PD 32 §18.2 requires identification of sources; absent that, the Court should assess low weight under the Civil Evidence Act 1995 s.4.
13. Much of the statement appears to be based on information from the Claimant rather than first-hand knowledge. Where information and belief are relied upon, PD 32 §18.2 requires the source to be identified. In the absence of sources and primary documents, I invite the Court to attach limited weight under the Civil Evidence Act 1995 s.4.
14. The Claimant’s own material shows the vehicle present for approximately one minute only (their exhibit numbering refers). There is no evidence of any period of parking. The following points (paras 15–17) address why, on those facts alone, no contract could have been formed and why keeper liability does not arise.
15. Under the BPA Code of Practice in force at the time (section 13.1), a driver must be given a reasonable consideration period, with a minimum of five minutes, to read the terms and decide whether to stay. If a driver decides not to park, they must be allowed to leave during that period without incurring a charge. On the Claimant’s evidence of about one minute, no contract could have been formed.
16. The signage relied upon states “NO PARKING ON YELLOW LINES”. That is a forbidding notice and does not make any offer capable of acceptance. In those circumstances there is no contractual basis for a charge. If anything, only the landowner could pursue trespass and then only for nominal loss, which has not been pleaded.
17. The Claimant seeks to rely on keeper liability. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requires identification of a period of parking; instantaneous images or a momentary observation are insufficient. The persuasive appellate decision in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H] confirms that a period of parking must be specified; a single instant does not prove parking. The driver has not been identified and PoFA has not been met, so keeper liability does not arise.
18. The Claimants "witness" at paragraph 29 in their statement about my defence has made a speculative and unsupported allegation. The Civil Procedure Rules do not require a litigant to be the sole author of their defence; what matters is that the party adopts it and verifies it with a Statement of Truth (CPR 22 and PD 22). Litigants routinely take advice and assistance in drafting statements of case. The Claimant’s witness identifies no source for the assertion that the Defendant ‘is not the original author’, nor explains why authorship would affect validity once verified. The allegation is therefore irrelevant, prejudicial, and should be disregarded.
Standing and Claimants Exhibit GS1
19. The contract evidenced is heavily redacted. It does not disclose the site address, the parties in full, the dates in force, the scope of any authority (including a right to litigate in the Claimant’s own name), or the identity and authority of the signatories. While commercially sensitive figures can be redacted, the core terms establishing standing cannot be.
20. In its present form, the Claimants exhibit GS1, their purported landowner agreement, does not prove standing and should attract little or no weight.
21. If the land is managed via an agent, I also require proof of the chain of authority back to the landowner. If an unredacted version has been provided only to the Court and not to me, I would regard that as procedurally improper; evidence should be served on both parties.
Trade-association “appeals”
22. The Claimant’s statement suggests that recipients benefit from independent ADR through the trade association. The Claimant is an IPC member. The second-stage “IAS” and the IPC are trading names within the same corporate group. In those circumstances I invite the Court to attach limited weight to the suggestion that this constitutes independent ADR in this case.
Relief sought
23. For the reasons above—defective PoC and resulting prejudice, the attempt to introduce new matter by witness statement, the limited probative value of the Claimant’s hearsay material, and the failure to prove standing with an intelligible contract—I ask the Court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a). In the alternative, I seek an unless order requiring properly particularised PoC and disclosure of a complete contract (parties, site, term, scope, and signatory authority), with strike-out for non-compliance, and my costs arising from the Claimant’s conduct.
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: Maira Munir
Date: 23 September 2025
You should also send the following, separate, email to Gladstones:
Subject: Urgent COLP enquiry – unauthorised conduct of litigation admitted – [Claim No. L1GF6N4R] [Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd] v [Maira Munir]
For the attention of the COLP, Mr John Llewellyn Davies,
Dear Mr Davies,
In this matter, your firm’s “Legal Assistant”, Leah Allcock, expressly states in her witness statement that they “have conduct of this action”. That is an admission of conduct of litigation by a person who (on the face of it) is not an authorised litigator. As you will be well aware:
• Conduct of litigation is a reserved legal activity under the Legal Services Act 2007 (s.12 & Sch.2).
• Carrying on a reserved activity when not entitled is an offence under s.14 LSA 2007.
• The High Court in Mazur & Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) confirms that unqualified staff may assist but may not conduct litigation, even if supervised.
Given the explicit wording used in this case, please provide your firm’s position on the following:
1. Authorisation: Is the individual who claims to “have conduct of this action” an authorised person for the purposes of the LSA (e.g. solicitor/barrister/CILEX litigator with current practising rights)? If so, state their regulator and authorisation number.
2. Scope: Has any reserved activity (issuing/serving pleadings, conducting correspondence with the court, settlement conduct, etc.) been performed by this individual?
3. Supervision is not a defence: If the person is not authorised, explain why they are represented as conducting the litigation notwithstanding Mazur and the LSA.
Remedial action: What immediate steps will Gladstones take to rectify the position (including any corrections/clarifications placed before the Court) and to ensure future compliance?
Your response will inform (a) the Defendant’s costs position in reliance on Mazur, and (b) whether this matter is reported to the SRA as a potential breach of the LSA 2007 and the SRA Standards and Regulations.
Please treat this as urgent.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
Finally, I hope you have not damaged your chances too badly by delaying this. Good luck for the hearing and please report back on how it went. As much detail as possible.
Here is short video which explains what is likely to happen on the day:
https://youtu.be/n93eoaxhzpU?feature=shared
Here’s a courtroom-ready opening you can read verbatim. Keep it calm and neutral.
Preliminary matters (before anything else):
1. Relief from sanctions / late WS (yours):
“Judge, preliminarily I apply for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. I was out of the country until 9 September and I did not receive the Notice of Allocation. I obtained a copy on 22 September and served my witness statement immediately. I apologise to the Court and to the Claimant. Admitting my statement will not derail the hearing and will help the Court deal with the real issues fairly.”
2. Reading time (only if the judge hasn’t pre-read):
“If the Court has not had the opportunity to read my statement and exhibits, I would be grateful for brief reading time.”
If relief is granted (very brief roadmap of the issues):
3. Defective pleadings / ambush:
“The Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4. A witness statement is not a substitute for proper particulars. I invite the Court to treat the claim on that footing.”
4. Unauthorised conduct of litigation (weight/costs):
“The Claimant’s deponent, a Legal Assistant, states they ‘have conduct of this action’. Conduct of litigation is a reserved activity. Even if supervised, it may not be carried out by an unauthorised person. I rely on Mazur & Stuart v CRS LLP for weight and costs.”
5. Merits—contract/PoFA in brief:
• “Their exhibits show the vehicle for about one minute only; no period of parking is evidenced.”
• “The sign relied upon is forbidding—‘NO PARKING ON YELLOW LINES’—so no contractual offer.”
• “The BPA Code required a minimum five-minute consideration period; on their own evidence that was not afforded.”
• “They have not identified the driver and PoFA requires a period of parking to engage keeper liability. That is not proved.”
6. Relief sought:
“Accordingly, I invite strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a). In the alternative, an unless order for proper particulars and core documents (including an unredacted contract showing standing), with strike-out for non-compliance. I also ask the Court to reflect the Claimant’s conduct in costs.”
If the judge asks you to prioritise, lead with (1) relief, then (5) the no period of parking / forbidding sign / no PoFA points, and only then the (4) unauthorised conduct for costs.
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
You have until 4pm on 11th November to submit your defence. As your wife is the registered keeper and assuming you made no previous appeal or transferred liability from the keeper to the driver, this is all being done in her name.
You cannot at this stage change the defendant if it is not you who is named on the claim form. It is too late to do so at this stage.
You can do everything your wife's behalf but it must all be in her name. This is unlikely to go all the way to a hearing as the claim is likely to be struck out due to failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). However, should it get that far, your wide would have to attend court as the defendant. You could act on her behalf as her lay-representative but she must attend and answer any questions if asked, even if you are representing her.
The defence is straight forward. You will attach to the defence a draft order and two transcripts of case law. All the documents are submitted as PDF attachments to an email which is sent to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and you CC in yourself. The email must contain the claim number in the subject field and in the body you put "Please find attached the defence, draft order and two transcripts in the matter of Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd v [the defendants full name] Claim No.: L1GF6N4R".
Here is the defence and you only need edit the defendants name and sign it by typing the defendants full name for the signature and dating it:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: L1GF6N4R
BETWEEN:
Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
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.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The Particulars of Claim fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), lacking any specific terms allegedly breached, the signage locations, or details of the breach. This prevents the Defendant from properly pleading a defence, and the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4. The Defendant cites the persuasive cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] (both attached), where similarly vague claims were struck out. Should the court not strike out the claim, the Defendant refers to the draft order in paragraph 4.
(b) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(c) 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;
(d) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(e) 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;
(f) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;
(g) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(h) 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 they face 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:
Here links to the Draft Order and the two transcripts:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/o1xbmqxzmgn4dv9el96kd/Draft-Order.pdf?rlkey=td1ajprejse2mgq6z9x0fgahr&st=byvlkosl&dl=0)
CEL v Chan transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=kumysd19&dl=0)
CMPS v Akande transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=17ry2gep&dl=0)