Free Traffic Legal Advice

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Parking Control Management (UK) 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 disclose any valid cause of action.

Preliminary Matter

2. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with the mandatory requirements of CPR 16.4(1)(a), which states that the PoC must include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. The PoC are so deficient in particulars that they fail to disclose a cause of action, making it impossible for the Defendant to plead properly.

3. Specifically, the PoC lack:

(a) The specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;

(b) The precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;

(c) Attachment or details of the contract relied upon, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.5;

(d) Particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;

(e) An explanation of how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) 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. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the court strikes out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) on the basis that:

• The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; and

• The statement of case is an abuse of process.

5. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.

Alternative Submission

6. The Defendant submits that the correct course of action is for the court to strike out the claim due to the Claimant's clear and material failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The rules exist to ensure fairness, and the Claimant's non-compliance cannot be excused. The Defendant asserts that "rules are rules," and the Claimant has failed to follow them.

7. However, in the unlikely event that the court does not agree with the persuasive nature of the cited appellate decisions, the Defendant submits the following alternative:

• The court should make an order requiring the Claimant to provide the following further and better particulars:

(a) Set out the specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;

(b) Specify the precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;

(c) Provide attachment or details of the contract relied upon, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.5;

(d) Provide particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;

(e) Explain how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) Clarify 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.

8. Without such particulars, the Defendant is unable to properly respond to the claim, resulting in unfairness and prejudice.

Draft Order

9. A draft order is appended to this defence, which the Defendant requests the court to consider adopting should the claim not be struck out at this stage.

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: