Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Asia1002 on August 05, 2025, 11:59:30 am
-
Follow the advice and you won't pay a penny to these shysters.
With an issue date of 23rd July you have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th August to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 8th September to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 65 characters per line and 122 lines limit.
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 adequately 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 16.7.3(1);
(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 submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with
CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because:
(a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause
(or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which
is (or are) relied on; and
(b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why
the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of
contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it
served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have
done pursuant to CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the
court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with
the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share
of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of
claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals
to the judge for case management.
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
-
Thank you. The car park belongs to the small shop and is available for the customers to use it while shopping allowing them to park for 30min. There’s a screen similar to the Lidl’s one where you put your reg number to get a permit. In my case, the landowner supposed to save my reg number in his mobile app allowing me a permanent permit, but failed to do so.
What are my next steps now? If the claim form was issued on the 23/07/2025 and it says that I have 14 days to respond from the day of service, do I still have until 11/08/2025 to do so?
Even if I lose but pay within 30 days, and then apply for CCJ to be removed from my record, does it still affect my credit score in any way or it will come back to my current position?
-
See https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/pcn-from-ukcps-limited/msg74494/#msg74494 for why you will never get a CCJ which affects your credit record if, at worst case, you pay a court judgement within 30 days. The parking companies try to frighten you into thinking otherwise.
If the land owner has the right to park any car, and gave you permission to do so, then a court will find in your favour.
You will get help for a defence here.
To start with it would help to have more details on the sort of land on which you parked.
-
Here are letters from Civil Enforcement and DCBL
-
I can get the landowner to put it in writing, but how likely I’m going to succeed? I’ve attached a redacted claim form
-
Get the land owner to put in writing what you have stated.
Post suitably redacted copies of paperwork.
-
Hi all, me and my partner have received multiple parking charges however, we had a landowner's oral permission to park there without any charges. The issue is that the landowner forgot to notify the managing company about it and it resulted in our reg numbers not being registered into their internal systems. I have now received a claim form for 2 of the charges. The landowner contacted the managing company to notify them of his error and requested for the charges to be cancelled but they didn't agree to do so. They told him that there are 19 parking charges on our names (I had no idea there were so many of them as I only received few letters), and basically they said it will be too high loss for them to cancel. I'm not sure what to do in this case as the amount of money they requested is enormous and I don't think that I'm liable to pay it if I parked there knowing that I actually have permission to do so. The date the claim form was issued is 23/07/2025 and I have limited time now to decide if I should pay it or defend it - I'm worried that if I lose I will be stuck with CCJ for which I can't allow in my circumstances. Is there anyone who had a similar issue or knows how to deal with it? The cost of solicitor is simply too high for me to afford (as well as the parking charges).
If I were to pay for the charges for which I received a claim form, does it prevent me from escalating the rest of parking charges to POPLA?