Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi,

Please can you help me and let me know if I stand a chance with this

Yesterday I received the witness statement by gladstones solicitors please see link where I have uploaded this:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pic8ZH9bdukOia5KSW0zYOQTXPBmTB-l/view?usp=drive_link

Also the defence I filed was this as instructed by your team:

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 16.7.3(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(1)(a), particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The Defendant
refers specifically to the persuasive appellate cases:

- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ
Murch, ref: E7GM9W44

- CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans,
ref: K0DP5J30

In both cases, the claim was struck out due to identical failures
to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of its
own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial reasoning set
out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County Court cases
involving identical failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
In those cases, 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. 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 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 (or contracts) 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.

Hi, today I received a letter for a court date and its really made me panic as I have never been to court before. Do you think this will go all the way? Will I have anything to pay now. Any help will be greatly appreciated

Link for the image

https://ibb.co/W9YTQPY

Hi,

Had the mediation today told them I am not going to settle. Its now going to waiting for a court date. Thank you for your help is there any advice for the next steps.

Kind regards

Hi,

I have uploaded the documents. I have also had a court letter to say notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track and I have until 2nd of October to fill in directions questionnaire

From the pack they sent the parking sign on the photo and then the one they have put a clear photo of have different information on them

https://imgur.com/a/QD0Qyov

B789 thank you for all your help I have submitted this online and will keep you updated. The reason I posted the whole form was the message from DWMB2 stated "As a starting point we could do with seeing:
The whole Claim Form (redact personal info and MCOL password, leave all dates and times visible)"

apologies for any inconvenience

Hi,

Please see attached as requested form, thank you for your help.

The below is the defence I want to make is it ok?

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that they are liable for the entirety of the claim.


2. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach. The Claimant has not specified the contractual terms that were allegedly breached, nor provided evidence of signage, photographs, or a copy of any contract. The claim therefore fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and should be struck out.


3. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver on the material date. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. In the absence of such compliance, the Defendant as registered keeper cannot be held liable.


4. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that:
a. A valid and binding contract existed with the driver.
b. The signage was adequate, visible, and capable of forming a contract.
c. The Claimant had authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) and to bring legal proceedings.


5. The Defendant further denies that the £100 charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a proportionate charge. It is an unenforceable penalty and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.


6. The additional sum of £60.00 contractual costs is an abuse of process.

In Southampton (Claim No. F0DP201T, 11/07/2019, HHJ Taylor), the court ruled that such added sums were unlawful, struck out claims, and held that adding debt collection costs was an abuse.

In Gloucester (Claim No. G4QZ465V, 21/06/2021, HHJ Murch), the judge again ruled that the £60 add-on was an abuse and struck it out.

These judgments make clear that such charges constitute unlawful double recovery, since all costs of collection are already factored into the parking company’s business model and the £100 PCN.



7. The Defendant disputes the Claimant’s entitlement to statutory interest under s69 of the County Courts Act 1984, given that no valid debt exists.


8. For the above reasons, the Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Hi,

Fantastic this the education I needed, I really appreciate the help and knowledge this forum provides.

Regards

Thank you for the reply, is it worth offering the original payment amount of what it would have cost in the car park. The reason I couldn't pay was due to both machines not working and me thinking that the payment had gone through on the phone after spending 20+ minutes on the phone.