1
Private parking tickets / Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
« on: Yesterday at 11:17:33 pm »
I thought so, I'll block the number.
Thank you very much!
Thank you very much!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
If the mediator probes your defence:”In what capacity are you asking that question? Are you legally trained? If not, please refrain from offering opinions. I will be reporting any attempt to do so as inappropriate.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
As long as you submitted the AoS before the deadline, then you still have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit the defence. It doesn't matter when the AoS is submitted, as long as it is before the deadline. Even if the AoS is submitted the day after you receive the claim, it extends the deadline for defence submission to 28 days from the date of service, which is 5 days after the issue date. If the 28th day falls on a weekend or bank holiday, then the deadline is extended to 4pm on the next working day.Thank you so much for this!
As you are now going to submit the defence, I advise you to do so using the following information:
You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Parkmaven Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."QuoteIN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Parkmaven 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:
Draft Order for the defence
After the first time you log into MCOL, any subsequent log in is via your Government Gateway. You can email MCOLITassistance@justice.gov.uk with:Yes I have submitted the AoS on 30/07/2025 but not through MCOL as I was unable to log. Because of that I have called the money claim tel number provided on the gov.uk website and I have been advised to send the AoS via email at aos.cnbc@justice.gov.uk• Your claim number
• our full name and address
• a screenshot or description of the error
• request for urgent access or confirmation of claim status
Did you submit an AoS? Did you follow the instructions to the letter in the linked PDF on how to submit the AoS? If you did not submit your defence or at least an AoS by 4pm on Monday 4th August, then the “bar has been put in place” message typically means the claimant has requested a default judgment or the claim has progressed to a stage where online responses are restricted.
If you didn't submit an AoS by the date above, why not?
As for your questions above the defence, you have been advised what to put in it. Anything else, should it ever proceed all the way to a hearing and the claimant submits their Witness Statement, then you can rebut their allegations with all the detail you have questioned.
For example: "Also, Parkmaven admitted via e-mail that they do not have a proof of delivery for the letter". Of course they DON'T have proof of delivery if they didn't use a recorded delivery service, which they don't. However, if they claim it was posted, you can put them to proof that it was in fact posted by way of a "proof of posting" certificate or equivalent.
The rebuttable presumption of posting arises from Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which states:“Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression ‘serve’ or the expression ‘give’ or ‘send’ or any other expression is used), then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.”
The rebuttable presumption under the Interpretation Act does not magically shift the burden of proof onto the defendant. The claimant must first establish the foundational facts—that the notice was:• Properly addressed
• Prepaid
• Actually posted
Only then does the presumption kick in. And even then, it’s rebuttable, meaning the defendant’s credible denial of receipt can defeat it, especially if the claimant cannot produce evidence of posting.
Anyway, back to the main question... Did you submit an AoS before 4pm on Monday 4th August?
Therefore I am very much amazed of the clarity and technicality you provided and very grateful indeed!First, ask CEO@asda.com to cancel this for you.I did send an e-mail to ceo@asda.com as well, might have been a little to late, however I did not receive a response. From what I read the vast majority of e-mails sent to ceo@asda.com are forwarded or dealt with by their customer service department.
Second, if this doesn’t work, post the exact text of your appeal. It sounds as if you identified the driver in it, and that may or may not be important. https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Follow thew advice here and you will not be paying a penny to ParkMaven. With an issue date of 16th July, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th August to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 18th August to submit your defence.b789 thank you! As I did not manage to log onto MCOL I have sent the AoS via email to aos.cnbc@justice.gov.uk
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
You only need to do the AoS if you need extra time to file your defence.
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 65 characters per line and 122 lines limit.Quote1. 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 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, 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 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.