Show Posts
1
Private parking tickets / Re: Private parking ticket fine- Europarking Gladstone solicitors
« on: May 13, 2026, 08:23:45 pm »
Thank you so much- DWMB2- Global Moderator
My draft defence is as follows:
"SUBSTITUTE DEFENCE
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 Defendant acknowledges receipt of the amended Particulars of Claim purportedly served pursuant to the Order dated 11 March 2026. However, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to comply with the terms and requirements of that Order.
The Order expressly directed the Claimant to identify “whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. The amended Particulars of Claim fail to do so with the requisite certainty or specificity.
In particular:
(a) the amended Particulars of Claim state that the claim is brought pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) “where applicable”, but fail to state whether POFA is in fact applicable and relied upon in this claim;
(b) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of action by further stating at paragraph 5.2 that “where POFA is not relied upon”, the Claimant will instead seek to establish liability on an alternative basis;
(c) the Claimant has therefore failed to identify clearly and unequivocally whether the Defendant is pursued as driver, keeper pursuant to POFA, or both;
(d) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to advance speculative and contradictory alternatives without properly pleading the legal basis upon which the Claimant seeks to recover the alleged debt.
Accordingly, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to comply with the Court’s Order and continues to fail adequately to particularise the basis of the claim with sufficient clarity and precision. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim.
Further and in the alternative, if the Court is not minded to strike out the claim, the Defendant responds to the amended Particulars of Claim as follows.
The Defendant denies that any enforceable contractual liability arose between the Claimant and the Defendant.
The Defendant is unable fully to understand the contractual basis of the claim because:
(a) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the signage relied upon was sufficiently prominent, legible, illuminated (if applicable), and capable of binding a reasonable motorist;
(b) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the terms and conditions relied upon were adequately brought to the attention of drivers prior to any alleged contract being formed;
(c) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof regarding the precise location, positioning, prominence, wording, and visibility of the signage relied upon at the material time;
(d) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the keypad registration system referred to in the amended Particulars of Claim was operational, accessible, properly maintained, clearly explained to patrons, and functioning correctly at the material time.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant has sufficiently proven the identity of the driver and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.
To the extent that the Claimant seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of POFA, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has complied with the mandatory statutory requirements necessary to establish keeper liability. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with each and every requirement of Schedule 4 of POFA.
Further and in the alternative, if POFA is not relied upon, the Claimant is required to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the identity of the driver. Mere keeper status does not create any lawful presumption of driver liability.
The Defendant further denies that the additional sum of £60, described variously as “contractual costs”, “debt recovery costs” or similar, is recoverable.
The Defendant avers that the additional £60 constitutes an attempt at double recovery and is contrary to established authority and the indemnity principle. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such sum was genuinely incurred, contractually agreed, and lawfully recoverable.
The Defendant further avers that the additional charges claimed exceed the level of parking charge considered by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and that no legitimate interest or commercial justification has been established for the enhanced sum now claimed.
The Defendant denies that the contractual terms relied upon were fair, transparent, or sufficiently prominent so as to satisfy the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The Defendant notes that the original claim was previously found by the Court not to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), resulting in the original Particulars of Claim being struck out unless amended. The Defendant maintains that the amended pleading remains materially deficient for the reasons set out above.
The Defendant respectfully reserves the right to amend, supplement, or expand upon this Defence should further documents, evidence, or information be disclosed by the Claimant."
My draft defence is as follows:
"SUBSTITUTE DEFENCE
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 Defendant acknowledges receipt of the amended Particulars of Claim purportedly served pursuant to the Order dated 11 March 2026. However, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to comply with the terms and requirements of that Order.
The Order expressly directed the Claimant to identify “whether the claim is brought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”. The amended Particulars of Claim fail to do so with the requisite certainty or specificity.
In particular:
(a) the amended Particulars of Claim state that the claim is brought pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) “where applicable”, but fail to state whether POFA is in fact applicable and relied upon in this claim;
(b) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to plead alternative and inconsistent causes of action by further stating at paragraph 5.2 that “where POFA is not relied upon”, the Claimant will instead seek to establish liability on an alternative basis;
(c) the Claimant has therefore failed to identify clearly and unequivocally whether the Defendant is pursued as driver, keeper pursuant to POFA, or both;
(d) the amended Particulars of Claim continue to advance speculative and contradictory alternatives without properly pleading the legal basis upon which the Claimant seeks to recover the alleged debt.
Accordingly, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to comply with the Court’s Order and continues to fail adequately to particularise the basis of the claim with sufficient clarity and precision. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim.
Further and in the alternative, if the Court is not minded to strike out the claim, the Defendant responds to the amended Particulars of Claim as follows.
The Defendant denies that any enforceable contractual liability arose between the Claimant and the Defendant.
The Defendant is unable fully to understand the contractual basis of the claim because:
(a) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the signage relied upon was sufficiently prominent, legible, illuminated (if applicable), and capable of binding a reasonable motorist;
(b) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the terms and conditions relied upon were adequately brought to the attention of drivers prior to any alleged contract being formed;
(c) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof regarding the precise location, positioning, prominence, wording, and visibility of the signage relied upon at the material time;
(d) the Claimant has failed to provide strict proof that the keypad registration system referred to in the amended Particulars of Claim was operational, accessible, properly maintained, clearly explained to patrons, and functioning correctly at the material time.
The Defendant denies that the Claimant has sufficiently proven the identity of the driver and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.
To the extent that the Claimant seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of POFA, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has complied with the mandatory statutory requirements necessary to establish keeper liability. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with each and every requirement of Schedule 4 of POFA.
Further and in the alternative, if POFA is not relied upon, the Claimant is required to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the identity of the driver. Mere keeper status does not create any lawful presumption of driver liability.
The Defendant further denies that the additional sum of £60, described variously as “contractual costs”, “debt recovery costs” or similar, is recoverable.
The Defendant avers that the additional £60 constitutes an attempt at double recovery and is contrary to established authority and the indemnity principle. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such sum was genuinely incurred, contractually agreed, and lawfully recoverable.
The Defendant further avers that the additional charges claimed exceed the level of parking charge considered by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and that no legitimate interest or commercial justification has been established for the enhanced sum now claimed.
The Defendant denies that the contractual terms relied upon were fair, transparent, or sufficiently prominent so as to satisfy the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The Defendant notes that the original claim was previously found by the Court not to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), resulting in the original Particulars of Claim being struck out unless amended. The Defendant maintains that the amended pleading remains materially deficient for the reasons set out above.
The Defendant respectfully reserves the right to amend, supplement, or expand upon this Defence should further documents, evidence, or information be disclosed by the Claimant."