That letter only amends the mistake where they mistakenly ordered the defendant to pay the costs. It just corrects the fact that you are now owed your £313 costs by the claimant and you must be paid no later than 17th June.
The issue is still an interpretation of that order . The claimant was ordered to submit a fully particularised "CLAIM", not just rehash the original inadequate PoC by 21st May. They didn't reissue the claim. They simply sent further PoC for the original claim.
Your argument that the claim is "dead" because it was never served within 4 months of issue still stands. A new claim had to have been issued. I have amended the WS you should send as advised at 3pm tomorrow to include this argument.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
UK Parking Control Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
Preliminary Matter: Dead Claim and Non-Compliance with Court Order
1. This Defence is filed in compliance with the Court’s order dated 8 May 2025 and solely to preserve the Defendant’s position. The Defendant maintains that this claim is dead and cannot lawfully proceed.
2. The original claim form was issued on 7 December 2022. It was never validly served. The Court set aside the default judgment specifically on the basis that the claim form had been served at the wrong address, in breach of CPR 6.9. The Court found that the Claimant had not taken reasonable steps to verify the Defendant’s current address prior to service and failed to engage with publicly available address verification resources, contrary to CPR 6.9(3).
3. The judgment was therefore set aside under CPR 13.2, and the Court’s order dated 8 May 2025 directed the Claimant to file and serve a fully particularised claim by 21 May 2025, failing which the claim would be struck out without further order. This required the service of a new and properly constituted claim that complies with CPR 7.4 and CPR 16.
4. The Claimant has failed to comply with that order. Rather than issuing and serving a new claim or re-serving the original claim form in compliance with CPR 6, the Claimant merely served amended Particulars of Claim, attempting to expand on a claim form that was never validly served and remains void.
5. This approach is procedurally defective. The claim form issued on 7 December 2022 is no longer capable of being served or relied upon. The Claimant did not apply for an extension of time under CPR 7.6 within the required four-month period. It is now well established — including in Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] 3 All ER 784, Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd [2021] EWHC 947 (TCC), and Croke v NatWest [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch) — that a claim form not validly served within four months becomes void, and the court has no jurisdiction to revive it.
6. The Claimant's failure to comply with the 8 May order — by attempting to proceed using defective proceedings that have already been set aside — is itself a breach of that order and justifies strike-out. As no valid, fully particularised claim was served by 21 May 2025, the claim should now be considered struck out without further order.
Substantive Defence (Preserved Without Prejudice)
7. Without prejudice to the above, the Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim and puts the Claimant to strict proof.
8. The Defendant made a genuine attempt to resolve the matter and avoid further waste of court resources. A written offer was made to QDR Solicitors, stating that the Defendant would treat the matter as concluded if the Claimant complied with the Court’s order and paid the £313 in costs awarded. That offer was ignored.
9. The Defendant has attempted repeatedly to obtain clarification from the Court about whether the claim is considered live. No clarification has been received. This holding defence is filed solely to preserve the Defendant’s position and prevent any default judgment pending further direction.
10. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) was issued long after the alleged contravention on 19 November 2017 and failed to comply with the time limits in paragraph 8(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant cannot rely on PoFA to hold the registered keeper liable. The driver has not been identified. As clarified in VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C], the burden is on the Claimant to either show PoFA compliance or prove the identity of the driver, and they have done neither.
11. The contractual authority relied upon by the Claimant is fundamentally flawed. The documents they rely on are dated either 2014 or 2019 — years after the claimed “ticketing commencement” in 2008 and the alleged contravention in 2017. These documents are heavily redacted, unsigned in parts, and fail to show continuity of authority. It is not even clear whether the named signatory had any legal interest in the land or authority to contract with the Claimant at the material time.
12. The Particulars of Claim remain vague and generic. They do not disclose a coherent cause of action based on material facts and fail to meet the standards required under CPR 16.2 and 16.4. Despite being given a final opportunity to rectify this position, the Claimant has continued to proceed on fundamentally defective foundations.
13. The Defendant reserves the right to apply for the claim to be struck out and/or to submit a fully pleaded amended defence should the Court confirm that the claim is being allowed to proceed despite its procedural and substantive flaws.
14. The Defendant also puts the Claimant to strict proof of their standing to issue and pursue charges at the location in their own name in 2017, their compliance with PoFA, and their right to sue the registered keeper given no admission of driving and the lack of a compliant NtK.
15. The Defendant intends to rely on correspondence with the Claimant’s legal representative in support of an application for full costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the grounds of unreasonable conduct if the Claimant continues to pursue a claim that is now clearly without merit and based on defective documentation and procedure.
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:
