Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: spookycat11 on December 23, 2025, 10:45:59 pm
-
Follow this advice and don't worry about adding a detail to the defence. This will either be struck out or discontinued just before the £27 trial fee has to be paid by the claimant.
With an issue date of 16th December, you had until 4pm on Monday 5th January to submit your defence. However, as you have submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you now have until 4pm on Monday 19th January to submit your defence.
You only had to submit an AoS if you needed extra time to prepare your defence. Hopefully you followed 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.
-
On initial inspection it seems that Halfords have their own parking bays marked in yellow - were you in one of these?
Halfords bays are marked with '60 minutes maximum stay'.
-
You'll need to re-post the original PCN redacting ONLY personal information.
Please also post the back of the PCN as we need to establish if they are using PoFA in trying to establish keeper liability.
Under no circumstances should the driver be revealed. If you need to mention the driver then only do it in the third person - ie the driver pulled in to get the car repaired.
-
With it being DCB Legal, it is a drawn out process.
b789 will be along to give the advice to deal with this.
-
Hello,
I am seeking advice regarding a County Court Claim that I have recently received in relation to a private parking charge.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle (V5C held). I am not naming the driver.
Background:
On 04/02/2025, the driver entered Robert Body Retail Park at 17:59:15. The driver was experiencing an emergency situation as the vehicle’s headlights were not working. The driver parked in order to attend Halfords on site to have the headlights repaired.
The driver remained on site for approximately 45 minutes, during which time the headlights were fitted and paid for. Bank statements are available showing payment to Halfords at that location on the same date and time. The parking charge alleges that no ticket was purchased. The driver did not purchase a ticket. The driver had never used this car park before and was not aware that payment was required. It was dark, the driver was not in their local town, and they were distressed due to the vehicle fault.
Notices and claim details:
All parking notices and correspondence were addressed to an incorrect name (e.g. John Bill Simpson was written as John Phil Sim). This was due to an error on the V5C, which was only discovered and corrected at a later date.
They have now received a County Court Claim Form, dated 16/12/25.
They have filed an acknowledgement of service but are yet to submit a defence, mostly due to the incorrect name on the claim. They are unsure what to do about this.
Please see copies of all notices that poster is aware of and the County Court Claim Form.
Initial notice from Euro car parks received 19/02/25 - https://ibb.co/2007zpZW
Debt recovery letter received 29/04/25 - https://ibb.co/Xk6jtw2T
Debt recovery letter received 7/11/25 - https://ibb.co/RTzD2G76
County court claim received 23/12/25 - https://ibb.co/4ZN9Nz2d
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Robert+Boby+Car+Park/@52.2435139,0.7088437,3a,75y,272.46h,83.39t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sD6UjQ7FV1A9Mxk-7Vimnew!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D6.612651269815672%26panoid%3DD6UjQ7FV1A9Mxk-7Vimnew%26yaw%3D272.4606968985401!7i16384!8i8192!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x47d84c460d72e055:0x42e08032d92216c6!2sRobert+Boby+Car+Park!8m2!3d52.2434161!4d0.7087823!16s%2Fg%2F11g698f1wv!3m5!1s0x47d84c460d72e055:0x42e08032d92216c6!8m2!3d52.2434161!4d0.7087823!16s%2Fg%2F11g698f1wv?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
I would appreciate advice on the best approach to defending this claim and what to do about incorrect details.
Thank you for any assistance.