Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Waify on December 01, 2025, 02:23:41 pm
-
With an issue date of 27th November, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 16th December to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 30th December 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 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 PD 16, para 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 materially 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 PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent 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 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
-
https://share.icloud.com/photos/0c8_PrWp6hO-f1zRAaQr4SPaA
-
Does this work please? Thanks!
-
Have you received an N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC (HMCTS)? You never received any "fine" so stop pooping your pants as though you are criminally liable for any statutory offence! You are being sued for an alleged breach of contract by the driver by an unregulated private parking firm. This is a simple civil justice matter of an alleged unpaid speculative invoice from the scammers at UKPC.
So, let's try and clarify the actual situation. There is absolutely NO danger of a CCJ, no matter what rubbish you received from any powerless debt collectors. Their only power is to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.
There is no way on earth that the bottom-dwelling firm of GCTT is a firm of solicitors. You are obviously very easily bamboozled by letterheads.
For now, the ONLY thing we need to see is the N1SDT Claim Form. Only the page with the Particulars of Claim (PoC) on them. DO NOT shows any of the other forms that came with it. You can discard those. DO NOT redact any dates or times on that form when you show it to us.
As long as you have not left this too late, you will not be paying a penny to UKPC if you follow the advice you receive here.
-
I need some urgent advice please. My husband parked our car at Bell Green retail park in June and was over the line of the space slightly (their picture makes it look worse than it was), there were loads of other free spaces. We only popped into the shops for 10mins. I have had lots of reminders for payment, then letter from GCTT solicitors, then DCB legal, now a threat of CCJ. I have left it a very long time which was silly but I did feel really angry we received a fine at all, I actually thought it could be a scam as I never knew they had parking restrictions at bell green. I want to know whether it is too late to try and fight it?? I am the registered keeper so all letters have come to me.