The case can't simply be transferred to NI. It would have to be struck out and then claimant would have to decide whether they want to issue a new claim, out of jurisdiction. The court is unlikely to just do that because the claimant did not err, you did.
At this point, you have four main options:
1. Ask the court to strike out the claim without making a formal application. This can be done by sending another email to the court, pointing out that the PoC are defective and asking the judge to strike it out based on the defence and the case law already provided. This doesn’t cost anything, but the court might not act unless a formal application is made.
2. Prepare for the hearing on 6 August. You should check with the court whether you can attend remotely, since you now live in Northern Ireland. If the hearing goes ahead, you should prepare a short argument explaining why the claim should be struck out due to the poor PoC and the lack of proper notice.
3. File a formal application (N244) asking the court to strike out the claim. This costs £313 and would include a witness statement and a draft order. It forces the court to look at the issue, but it’s not cheap and might not be necessary if the court is already considering the problems with the claim. You can ask for the N244 fee back, but there’s a real risk the court won’t award it because of your failure to notify the court of the address/jurisdiction change.
4. Ask the court to confirm that the hearing will be held by video link. This can be done by email and doesn’t cost anything. It’s a practical step to make sure you can attend the hearing without needing to travel to Manchester.
The best course of action right now is to email the court again, asking for the claim to be struck out and for the hearing to be held remotely. If the court refuses to do either, then you can decide whether to go ahead with the hearing or file a formal application.
You received the claimants WS bundle a week ago!!! What are we only finding out about this today?
Once you were aware of ongoing proceedings, you were obliged to inform the court (CNBC if before allocation to Manchester or Manchester if it had already been allocated).
Under CPR 5.4C and general court practice, parties have a duty to keep the court informed of their current address once proceedings are live. The initial obligation to serve documents correctly lies with the claimant. Once the defendant acknowledges service (AoS) or files a defence, they are expected to update the court if their address changes.
The AoS was filed on 28 Jan with the Manchester address. You moved to Northern Ireland shortly after and notified Gladstones and the claimant on the same day (28 Jan) via a Data Rectification Notice. Gladstones acknowledged the new address on 6 Feb.
But you did not notify the court directly. While the claimant was informed, the court was not—so the court continued to send documents (e.g. allocation order, hearing notice) to the Manchester address.
The court will likely say “You should have told us”. However, you can argue that the claimant knew the new address and should have ensured the court was updated. You only discovered the hearing date when the trial bundle was emailed on 25 June. This late notice has prejudiced your ability to prepare and attend.
Even though the transfer was automatic and procedurally correct at the time, the situation changed. You never received the allocation order or hearing notice—only discovering it 5 days before the hearing via the claimant’s bundle. This creates a procedural unfairness, even if the original transfer was valid.
I don't know what you emailed to the court but I suggest you follow it up with the following:
Subject: URGENT – Objection to Hearing Proceeding – Case No [INSERT] – Hearing 7 July 2024
To: [Insert Manchester County Court email address]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write urgently regarding the above matter, listed for hearing on 7 July 2024 at Manchester County Court.
I object to the hearing proceeding at all, on the following grounds:
• I did not receive the Notice of Allocation, hearing date, or any directions from the court.
• I only became aware of the hearing on 25 June 2024, when the claimant’s legal representative (Gladstones Solicitors) emailed me their trial bundle. This was the first time I saw the allocation order or the hearing date.
• I relocated to Northern Ireland in early February 2024 and notified both the claimant and Gladstones of my new address on 28 January 2024 via a Data Rectification Notice. Gladstones acknowledged this on 6 February 2024.
• The court was not updated with my new address, and as a result, I have been denied proper notice of the hearing and any opportunity to comply with directions.
This is a clear breach of CPR 27.4 and CPR 1.1, and it undermines my right to a fair hearing under Article 6 ECHR.
I therefore request that the hearing be vacated immediately and relisted only after proper notice and directions have been served to my current address.
If the court intends to proceed regardless, I request urgent confirmation and reasons, so I may consider further action.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
[Case Number]
[NI Address]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
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 enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
Here is the defence and link to the draft order and relevant transcripts that go with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you send all the documents as PDF attachments in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Euro Parking Services Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Euro Parking Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
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 adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.
5. The Defendant also attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order previously issued by a district judge at another court in a similar case. In that case, the court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Failed to explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
6. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
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:[/b]
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zc23txk7poctyyxiv2ytx/Strikeout-order-1-a-v2.1.pdf?rlkey=pancly3z6zwqt2cra5rvvh3ls&st=nq7a58tz&dl=0)
CEL v Chan Transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nb9ypbecuurpmln00dily/CELvChan-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=7mpuvpmpe45s2zbhch21om1ez&st=i8dnbod3&dl=0)
CPMS v Akande Transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&st=qi4lv3fv&dl=0)