Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: b789 on September 23, 2025, 04:48:30 pm

Quote from: DearyDiora on September 23, 2025, 01:31:33 pm

Having being advised to put the appeal into UKPC in this format, in the likelihood that they will close the case given a blue badge as evidence can be supplied, along side the confusing and unclear bay markings.

I was further advised to tick 'defend part of the claim' as they believe it would not be a winning case? So if the judgement was to reduce it back to the original PCN ticket cost and take the loss that the blue badge wasn't displayed.  It wasn't something i was happy to do, but I guess I panicked and was worried about the deadline date looming and the high costs.

Oh my, same person advised me on the jurisdiction and said to dispute this! I feel so silly to have submitted this in. Please would you be able to explain to me how this will be handed as all this time I believed it was at court?

Who has given you this duff "advice" and screwed you in the process?

You should have selected the option to defend the whole claim and you do not dispute jurisdiction unless you are resident outside of England or Wales.

Did you submit the Acknowledgement of Service by post or online using the MCOL portal? How did you submit the AoS and did you post it or use the online MCOL portal?

Please confirm whether you put anything at all in the defence box, either online or in the paper form?

Hopefully the claimant hasn't made a CPR 11 application.

With an issue date of 4th September, you had until 4pm today to submit your defence or, if you needed longer, submit the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) by today and you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 7th October to submit your defence.

I am not sure whether MCOL will let you submit a defence now that you've screwed up the tick boxes, but you can try and submit the following as your defence in MCOL, if it lets you:

Quote

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.

What you also need to do immediately, besides answering the questions above, is as follows:

Send a single email addressed to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and you CC info@dcblegal.co.uk and yourself:

Quote

Subject: Tick-box errors – rectify under CPR 3.10; defend claim in full – [Claim No.]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer to the AoS filed on [date]. Two tick-box errors were made: “defend part of the claim” and “contest jurisdiction”.
For the avoidance of doubt, no sum is admitted, the Defendant does not contest the court’s jurisdiction, and the Defendant intends to defend the claim in full.

Please correct the record pursuant to CPR 3.10 and accept the attached Defence for filing. If the MCOL system flag prevents online filing, please treat the Defence as filed by email today.

I have copied the Claimant’s solicitor with this correspondence.

Yours faithfully,

[your full name]

As a back up, you also attach the following copy of the defence and draft order to that email. You sign any documents, such as the defence below by simply typing your full name. There is nothing other than edit in the draft order.

Quote

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

UK Parking Control Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

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.

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 attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) 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.

5. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:[

The draft order is here:

Draft Order for the defence

Hi @b789

Agreed, error on the advice part given to me; point noted for future reference, that's for sure.

In answer to your questions:
1. Did you submit the Acknowledgement of Service by post or online using the MCOL portal? How did you submit the AoS and did you post it or use the online MCOL portal? I did so via post (recorded delivery) dated 19 September 2025.

Please advise if I should proceed with the email / or try online using the MCOL portal first? I suppose I should follow it up with the drafted email you mention below for the error and avoidance of doubt?

2. Please confirm whether you put anything at all in the defence box, either online or in the paper form? No, I left the defence section blank; to be filled in with the extension date.

Should I proceed with how it stands and try upload to MCOL portal right now? given you mentioned the acknowledgement of service deadline to submit is today.

Many thanks and really appreciate your advice.

The letter of claim will have been from DCB Legal, not from UKPC.

Letter of Claim.

The N1SDT claim was deemed served on 8 September and your defence has to be submitted within 28 days, so by 6 October if you submitted an Acknowledgment of Service.

+1
Looks like the CEO just walked along and ticketed everybody parked there ! Definitely NOT a contravention on the OP's car. However, they are virtually certain to reject informal reps, and probably formal ones against a Notice to Owner as well, so OP must be prepared to stand his/her ground and take them to London Tribunals.

OP, are you the owner of the car, as in your name and address is on the V5C and it is up-to-date ?