Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please show the back of the Notice to Keeper (NtK). It is important that we see all the wording on the notice.

With an issue date of 5th November, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th November to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 8th December to submit your defence.

You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. 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

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.

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(1)(a).

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 similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive appellate cases:

- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ Murch, ref: E7GM9W44

- CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans, ref: K0DP5J30

In both cases, the claim was struck out due to materially similar failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4. In those cases, 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. 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 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 (or contracts) 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.

Are both claims for the same vehicle at the same location? If so, do not submit the first defence yet. There is the additional cause of action estoppel to consider.

Please show the other claim also.

Ah, OK, so it's an LoC, not a claim. I also not that it is a Notice to Hirer (NtH) not an NtK. Is it in your name as the Hirer?

When you received the NtH, did they include copies of a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement, the Hire Agreement, a copy of a Statement of Liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement and a copy of the original NtK sent to the Hire/Lease company?

You need to see the original NtK as the date it was issued also affects the relevant period for the issue of the NtH. Whilst that is important, there is enough evidence in their NtH to show that they can ONLY pursue the driver. They have absolutely no idea who that was unless you, the Hirer, blab it to them.

Never mind... I see you were in communication with Horizon about the PCNs and admitted liability by offering to pay for the "parking". I'm sorry, but that was a really silly move. Had the driver not been identified, there was no way they could pursue you as the Hirer. The driver is always liable and unless they conform to all the requirements of PoFA 2012, they cannot transfer liability from the driver to the Hirer.

It’s annoying, but it’s not game over. Admitting being the driver only knocks out the PoFA keeper/hirer route. You still have strong, driver-based defences that you can use once you see their WS and can then rebut the claim, if this is not first struck out for the CPR 16.4(1)(a) failures.

So, go ahead and submit the defence as advised and you can also respond to the second LoC with the following:

Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim — Ref: [reference number] — Bath Street Car Park, Ilkeston

Dear Sirs,

Your Letter of Claim contains insufficient detail and fails to provide the evidence your client relies upon. It does not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paras 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2) and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PD-PAC) paras 6(a) and 6(c).

There are already live proceedings between the same parties concerning PCNs from the same site and contiguous period (June–Aug 2024): Claim No. [xxxx]. Any separate claim now for another PCN from that same factual matrix would be an abuse (Henderson v Henderson; Johnson v Gore Wood; Aldi v WSP) and, upon determination of the first action, would be barred by cause of action estoppel (merger). I will apply under CPR 3.4(2)(b) to strike out any second claim and seek costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) (LiP rate £24/hour). For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consent to any amendment of the existing claim or any attempt to “fold” this PCN into it.

To discharge my own Protocol duties, and so that informed discussion can occur, please provide within 30 days the key documents required by PD-PAC 6(a) and 6(c):

1. Copies of all notices relied upon for this PCN (NtD/NtK/NtH as applicable), all correspondence, and the evidence pack (ANPR images, timestamps, audit trail).
2. Contemporaneous photographs of the entrance and on-site signage as displayed on the material date (not library artwork), with a site plan showing sign locations, sizes and wording.
3. The precise contractual term(s) you allege were breached and the legal basis for each sum claimed (identify the principal as consideration or damages and the basis for any add-on).
4. The written landowner agreement in force at the material time, evidencing standing to enforce and to litigate and any variation introducing/withdrawing the historic “first hour free”.
5. Machine/payment logs for the material date and any records showing when and how the historic free first hour was withdrawn and publicised at the entry.

I will provide a full response within 30 days of receipt of a Protocol-compliant LoC and the above documents. Until then, meaningful engagement is not possible. If you issue regardless, I will seek immediate case management relief (including strike-out or a stay and disclosure) and costs.

I will not use any web portal. Correspond by post or email only.

Yours faithfully,

[Your name]
[Your address]
[Your email]
Defendant in Claim No. [xxxx]

This is very defendable. The PPSCoP states at section 3.4

3.4. Material changes – notices

Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for public parking, the parking operator must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear
that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges.

NOTE: Examples of material changes can include introduction of parking enforcement where none has previously applied, introduction of time-limited free parking, or reductions in the time limit within which free parking is available. Given the need to avoid confusion and clutter at entrances the test is whether the fact that a change has been made is clearly signalled to drivers on entering the land and the nature of the change is clearly displayed thereafter – it may also be necessary to install repeater notices depending on the scale of the premises.

Also, as they are unable to rely on PoFA to hold you liable as the Hirer and the driver is not identified, any claim that ever reached a hearing would have no chancel of being successful.

Hi,
so after submitting the email in response to the 2nd LOC they have responded with the following email...

Good Afternoon. 
 
Thank you for your email dated 17th November 2025.
 
Please find attached the content we trust to be self-explanatory.
 
Our Client is therefore satisfied the case against you should proceed unless the debt owing of £165.00 is discharged in full. To ensure no further action is taken, you should make payment on or before 11th December 2025.
 
If you do not make payment, we are instructed to issue legal proceedings to recover the outstanding balance in full. Should it become necessary to issue legal proceedings, we suggest you follow the steps on the claim form upon receipt of the same.
 
Payment can be made to the account detailed as follows: 
 
Gladstones Solicitors Ltd   
Barclays Bank     
Account Number: 33028712   
Sort Code: 20-24-09   
 
Please quote the above reference number XXXXXXXX when making payment to ensure the payment can be allocated correctly.

Kind Regards,
 
Bethany
Legal Assistant



The attachments is the pcn.

Assuming they are going to file with the court also for this one.

Thank you for that!! I'll get on it and await their response.