Received particulars of claim and responded to MCOL for extra time.
Attached is the particulars of claim and I've drafted some wordings for the response. Any help would be very helpful.TIA.
Parking Fine Defence
Grounds for defence are as follows:
The defendant denies liability for the claim.
The Claimants Particulars of Claim (PoC) fails to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) as they do not set out a clear and concise statement of facts. The PoC fails to specify:
The full terms of the alleged contract.
Whether the claim is for breach of contract or a contractual charge.
How the sum claimed, including the additional £210 has been calculated.
How the claimant asserts keeper liability under PoFA.
The specific date of each contravention.
The exact location of each contravention.
The defendant invites the court to strike out the claim or order the claimant to re-please with proper details.
No notice to keeper (NtK) was sent for the allegation on the 22/07/2025.
A notice to keeper was sent following an appeal with the claimant in 2 instances. Although, the claimants NtK does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge.
The Notice to Keeper is issued too late to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. Paragraph 9(4) requires delivery of a Notice to Keeper within 14 days where no windscreen ticket was served. A notice to keeper was sent beyond this date for the 2 instances. Therefore, the statutory conditions have not been met, and the operator cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
The claimants NtK does not comply with PoFA Schedule 4, 9(2)(e)(i). PoFA requires wording that explicityly links the keeper to the payment obligation, either by inviting them to pay or provide the drivers details. The NtK only requests the details of the driver and provides no payment instructions, with no indication the keeper is invited to pay. PoFA compliance must be explicit; implied obligations do not suffice. Keeper liability does not apply.
The claimant seeks an additional £210 beyond the parking charge notice. PoFA 4(5) prohibits this, limiting rcevery to the amount in 9(2)(d). The extra sum is an abuse of process.
The claimant is put to strict proof of standing, contractual authority, and PoFA compliance.
The claim is without merit and should be struck out.
Show Posts
