Free Traffic Legal Advice

It's the std POC from DCBL, so the std defence as posted by b789 should be applicable.  Check that it is consistent with your claim.

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 122 lines limit.

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.

Street view shows only the South end of Amhurst gardens is in a Controlled Parking Zone, but the Hounslow map shows that the rest of road is now also in a (different) parking zone.  So you should have passed a sign as you drove in highlighting the change in Zone.  Are you able to go back and have a look / take pictures?

Ok, assuming that you didn't get a windscreen PCN - APCOA have failed to issue the PCN within the required 14 days to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. In general APCOA don't litigate, but you could try a complaint, which they should treat as an appeal. Make sure you write only as the keeper, any reference the the driver being in the 3rd person. Something along the lines of

"I am writing in reference to your PCN xxx re Vehicle YYY. I am the registered keeper and have recently returned after an extended overseas trip to your PCN and subsequent 'debt collection' letters. I am under no obligation to name the driver, and will not be doing so. Your PCN was issued too late to transfer liability to the keeper under the POFA, and I am therefore unable to help you further in this matter. I look forward to your notification that this PCN has been cancelled.'

They will probably just waffle on that it is too late as it is now in the hands of the debt collectors, but it puts them on notice you are not a push over.

Was the original a windscreen notice? Presume you appealed to the parking co and they rejected?

Presume that is not in your name?  You need to get the lease co to nominate you as the hirer, and then you will get a PCN in your name.  The good news with that is they will almost certainly not comply with the legal requirements to transfer liability to you, and you will be able to fend it off - although you may have to wait it out till a court claim to get there.

Have a look at the sticky and add the details as requested:  https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/

External host required for the images.

Have you got a Notice to Hirer in your own name?

You have not got the original PCN, not probably a reminder - this is often because the V5C has not been updated, and the reg address is not correct.  Suggest you get it out and check - assuming you are the reg keeper (i.e. it's not on lease?).  If wrong, then a) you need to get it updated and b) you need to send a data rectification notice to APCOA (in case they do decide on court).

You can send a complaint to them (as reg keeper only!) saying that you didn't receive the original PCN - and that they need to consider as an appeal.  The basis is that the airport is not relevant land, they don't know who was driving and you are not obliged, and will not, tell them who was, and therefore they can't enforce against the reg keeper, and must cancel the PCN.  APCOA usually roll over when confronted with this.