Here is my proposed amended defence
AMENDED DEFENCE
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER
Claim No: [XXXX]
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL PARKING CONTROL GROUP LIMITED (Claimant)
— and —
[YOUR NAME] (Defendant)
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.
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration [XXX] and was the driver at the material time. The claim is denied in its entirety for the reasons set out below.
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.
2. It is denied that the vehicle was "parked in an area where parking is prohibited" as alleged. The Claimant's own evidence shows the vehicle was stationary at the location for 1 minute and 25 seconds only (18:53:47 to 18:55:12). The Defendant's version of events, pursuant to CPR 16.5(2)(b), is as follows.
3. At the material time the Defendant was working as a self-employed delivery driver under contract to Amazon Logistics UK Limited (trading as Amazon Flex), undertaking deliveries on a pre-allocated delivery block.
4. The vehicle was momentarily stopped for the sole purpose of unloading parcels and delivering them on foot to residents of the apartment building at the location. A delivery to that very building is recorded in the Amazon Flex application as completed at 18:54, falling squarely within the 1 minute 25 second window relied upon by the Claimant.
5. The Defendant denies that the act of momentarily stopping a delivery vehicle to unload constitutes "parking." The Defendant will rely on the County Court appeal decision of His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, in which it was held that brief stopping for the purpose of unloading is not "parking" in the ordinary sense and does not engage parking restrictions of this kind. While Jopson concerned a resident's right to unload, the underlying principle — that loading/unloading is functionally and legally distinct from parking — applies with equal force to a delivery driver lawfully unloading goods at the same destination.
6. Further or alternatively, it is denied that any contract was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant. A contract by conduct in these circumstances requires a reasonable consideration period during which a driver may locate, read and decide whether to accept the terms of the signage. The International Parking Community Code of Practice (in force at the material time) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (in force from 1 October 2024) each prescribe a minimum 5-minute consideration period. A stop of 1 minute 25 seconds falls well below that threshold, and the Claimant has adduced no evidence capable of establishing acceptance of any contractual terms.
7. In any event, the signage relied upon by the Claimant makes no reference to a prohibition on unloading, loading or stopping for the purposes of delivery. The Defendant denies that any reasonable driver in his position would have understood the signage to prohibit the brief stop in question.
8. To the extent the sum claimed exceeds the original parking charge, any additional "debt recovery", "administration" or like costs are denied. Such add-on sums are not recoverable, being either an abuse of process or already subsumed within the parking charge per the reasoning of the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.
9. It is denied that the sum claimed, or any sum, is due. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of: (a) the contractual terms relied upon; (b) the formation of any contract with the Defendant; (c) the alleged breach; and (d) the basis on which the sum claimed has been calculated, including any element of damages and any entitlement to interest.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Amended 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: ……………………………
[YOUR NAME], Defendant
Date: ……………………………
"
I've been asked today to call DCBLegal, even though we've had mediation they want to propose a settlement it seems, I'm seriously considering going ahead, unless anyone here thinks it's a bad idea?
