Translates into knows nothing about this area of lawAside from those employed by law firms working with parking companies there will be very few lawyers with much experience of private parking cases - hiring one would cost more than the sum being demanded, so people don't!
Hi,
The location is here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/asjjgtim89NkTjUBA
The trouble is it used to be a Homebase carpark which has since been demolished. The car park has not been in use for years.
How would you recommend submitting the full defence? Is it via the portal or to the Court? I also do not know if it should be on a particular form (such as a N9B that I Googled)?
Thanks.
There is no evidence the defence has been received.Yes there is, the screenshot says "You have submitted a defence or part admission".
IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
G24 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.
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 attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. 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) Adequately 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.
5. 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.
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:
By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
[Today’s Date]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Your Letter of Claim dated 20th March 2025 / Your response dated 22nd April 2025
I write further to your recent correspondence and must express my dissatisfaction with the failure to comply with the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC).
In my response dated 28th March 2025, I asked two clear and specific questions. Your reply has wholly failed to provide the necessary information in accordance with Paragraphs 3.1(a), 5.1 and 5.2 of the PAPDC, which obliges a creditor or their representative to provide a detailed response to any points raised in the debtor’s reply.
Your response failed to address the following:
1. The nature and legal basis of the £70 “debt recovery” fee
I requested clarification as to whether this sum is inclusive or exclusive of VAT. Your response simply repeats that the charge is a “contribution to costs” and relies on boilerplate assertions that do not answer the question. This does not meet the standard of engagement required by the PAPDC.
Please now provide:1. A detailed breakdown of this £70 sum.
2. Confirmation of whether it is net or inclusive of VAT.
3. If VAT is included, an explanation of why I, as the alleged debtor, am expected to meet your client’s VAT liability.
4. If it is not invoiced with VAT, an explanation of how you justify this against HMRC VATSC06140.
2. The legal characterisation of the £100 principal sum
I asked whether your client is pursuing this as damages for breach of contract or as a fee arising from the provision of a contractual service. You have failed to answer this directly. This distinction is critical and must be clarified.
Please confirm, in precise legal terms:1. Whether the principal sum is alleged as damages or consideration.
2. If consideration, how the amount was calculated and what service was purportedly provided in return.
Your failure to answer these questions is a breach of the spirit and the letter of the PAPDC. I remind you that paragraph 7 of the Protocol makes clear that the parties are expected to engage in a constructive and cooperative exchange of information. Your template responses are obstructive and do not assist in resolving the dispute without litigation.
Should your client issue a claim without addressing these questions, I will draw the court’s attention to this non-compliance and reserve the right to seek costs on the grounds of unreasonable conduct.
Additionally, if you continue to disregard the requirements of the Protocol and persist in failing to engage with legitimate pre-action queries, I will consider this a regulatory matter and will submit a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Your correspondence and responses will be retained and submitted in full as evidence of this failure.
I again request a substantive and specific response to each of the points above within 14 days.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
By email to: info@dcblegal.co.uk
[Date]
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 20th March 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim.
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]