No need to CC in District Enforcement but no harm done. Probably that is what forced Gladstones to respond do quickly as they most likely got a panicky phone call from DE. They never attend a hearing but they will likely send a pay by the hour advocate on their behalf. If they don't, even better.
Who has signed their WS? Is it a paralegal from Gladstones or an employee from DE? Interesting that they have offered their own draft order for the set aside (not for the claim). They are on the back foot.
Assuming you have paid for the application (N244) they are not offering anything in their order except to agree to the set aside and that you submit a defence to the original claim. Do not accept that. You want your costs back and the claim thrown out or at least force them to comply with the draft order to your defence.
Regarding the points you noted about their WS... You could send a supplementary WS.
Just so you understand, here are some explanations to counter their points:
34. The Defendant alleges that they were unable to respond to the claim as they did not receive the Court papers. Notices were served at the address provided by the DVLA. It is the Defendant’s obligation to ensure their details are correct and up to date with the DVLA and the Claimant cannot be prejudiced for their failure to do so. Further, the Claim Form was served on the Defendant at their last known place of residence pursuant to CPR 6.9.
DVLA data is provided for a single, very limited reason: to allow a parking operator to invite the registered keeper to either name the driver or pay the invoice, or to inform the registered keeper that they will be liable if they do not, as well as to notify them of their rights to appeal.
The system, known as 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date Of Event), provides a snapshot in time of the address to enable a parking firm to send a Notice to the registered keeper. Operators are only permitted to request this information from the DVLA
once. Therefore, the operators CoP requires that reasonable steps be taken to ensure the address details are current before litigation. Even if a motorist later updates their V5C logbook with a new address (or if the DVLA fails to process a change in a timely manner, which is reportedly common), a parking operator will not be aware of this and cannot find out.
There is no safe assumption that a DVLA vehicle address is a valid address for serving a Defendant. The KADOE address is not provided as a 'court claim service address' and should not be relied upon, as it only indicates where the vehicle was kept at a historical point in time (which may not be where the keeper resides; it is simply where the car was 'kept').
37. The Defendant alleges that their Tenancy Agreement makes no reference to a third party being able to issue parking charges or a requirement to display a permit. The Defendant provided a copy of the Tenancy Agreement for 9 Stratford House Road in support of their application. The Claimant submits that the Defendant’s Tenancy Agreement has no impact on their liability for the PCNs.
They would say that, wouldn't they. Use the following as your counter to that:
Supremacy of Contract:
You should argue that your Tenancy Agreement, which predates any alleged contract between the managing agent and the parking operator, has supremacy of contract. Since the Tenancy Agreement does not mention any requirement to display a permit or authorise a third party to issue parking charges, the terms of the agreement take precedence over any subsequent parking rules imposed by the managing agent or parking operator. In the absence of any such terms in the Tenancy Agreement, you should claim that you did not consent to these rules and, therefore, cannot be held liable for breaching them.
Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Section 37 Compliance:
You can argue that, under Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, any variation of the Tenancy Agreement that affects the tenant's rights must meet specific requirements. Section 37(5)(a) or (b) stipulates that, for a variation to be enforceable, it must either be agreed upon by at least 75% of the leaseholders or tenants, with no more than 10% dissenting, and be authorised by the court. If the managing agent did not follow those requirements as required by the Act when imposing the parking rules, you can argue that the purported contract with the parking operator is invalid and the original terms of the Tenancy Agreement remain in force.
No Evidence of Agreement to New Terms:
You should assert that there is no evidence that you agreed to any new terms that would allow a third party to issue parking charges or require a permit. If you did at any point show a permit, it was purely out of courtesy, not obligation. If the parking operator or managing agent did not inform you of these new terms or obtain you explicit consent, then you should argue that you are not bound by them. Without clear evidence of agreement to these new terms, you argue that the terms of the Tenancy Agreement prevail.
Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation:
You could invoke the principle of estoppel, arguing that you had a legitimate expectation based on the terms of the Tenancy Agreement that you would not be subject to additional parking rules or charges. Since you relied on this understanding when signing the Tenancy Agreement, it would be unfair to enforce new terms retrospectively without proper notice or agreement.
Challenging the Credibility of the Claimant’s Witness Statement:
Since the witness statement is signed only by a paralegal from the claimant's solicitor (if that is indeed the case), you should challenge its credibility, arguing that it lacks first-hand knowledge of the facts. You argue that the statement does not constitute substantive evidence to override the Tenancy Agreement, especially if it does not provide a clear basis for the claim that the Tenancy Agreement has no impact on liability for the PCNs.
39. The Defendant avers the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are deficient, however despite this the Claimant notes the Defendant has been able to produce a substantive application. In this regard, the Claimant believes the Defendant has not suffered any prejudice.
Non-Compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a): You must emphasise that the claimant’s PoC did not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), which requires that the particulars
must include "a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies." If the PoC did not provide a clear and concise account of the facts that formed the basis of the claim, then it is deficient. The fact that you managed to produce a substantive application based on your own knowledge does not absolve the claimant of their responsibility to comply with this rule.
Lack of Sufficient Information:
You have already argued in your draft defence that the PoC were so inadequate that they failed to provide sufficient information for you to fully understand the case against you or to prepare a proper defence. This lack of detail forced you to rely on your own recollection and limited information, rather than being able to address specific claims made by the claimant. Therefore, you were prejudiced by not having the opportunity to respond to a properly articulated claim.
Prejudice to the Defendant:
You argue that you have suffered prejudice as a result of the inadequate PoC because you were not given fair notice of the claim against you. This is a fundamental principle of justice, as it ensures that a defendant has a fair opportunity to know the case they must meet and to prepare a defence. The fact that you managed to infer some details from the limited information provided does not negate the prejudice caused by the claimant’s failure to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules.
Requirement for Proper Pleading:
You must stress that the rules of court exist to ensure fairness and clarity in legal proceedings. Compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a) is not optional; it is a mandatory requirement designed to provide a clear framework within which both parties can understand the case. The claimant's failure to meet this requirement should not be excused simply because you managed to put together a response based on your own knowledge and assumptions. Proper legal procedure requires that each party is given a fair and equal opportunity to present their case based on a clear and complete statement of facts.
Emphasise Legal Precedents and Principles:
You have already cite relevant legal precedents and principles that reinforce the importance of providing adequate particulars of claim with the CPMS v Akande and CEL v Chan transcripts. Courts have consistently held that providing clear and detailed particulars is
essential for fairness in legal proceedings. By not adhering to these principles, the claimant undermines the integrity of the process and prejudices your ability to defend yourself.
40. Notwithstanding the above, the Claim is issued via the County Court Business Centre which is a procedure specifically provided for in the Civil Procedure Rules. This only allows the Claimant to insert brief details of the Claim. In any event, the Claimant confirms that the Particulars of Claim contained sufficient information for the Defendant to be aware of what the claim relates to; namely:-
6
i. The date of the charge;
ii. The amount outstanding;
iii. That it relates to a parking charge; and
iv. That it is a debt.
Requirement for Sufficient Particulars of Claim Under CPR 16.4(1)(a):
You must emphasise that, regardless of the method used to issue the claim (including through the CNBC via MCOL), the claimant is still required to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(a). This rule mandates that the PoC
must include "a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies." The brief details allowed in the initial MCOL form do not exempt the claimant from their obligation to provide sufficient particulars to give the Defendant a clear understanding of the case against them. The claimant could have filed additional particulars after issuing the claim to comply with this requirement.
Ability to Provide Further Particulars After Issuing the Claim:
You argue that the claimant had the opportunity to provide further particulars of claim after issuing the claim via MCOL but chose not to do so. The Civil Procedure Rules allow claimants to serve more detailed particulars of claim within 14 days of the claim form. The claimant’s reliance on the MCOL’s limitations is not a valid excuse for failing to provide the necessary details. The claimant should have served a more detailed document to ensure the Defendant was fully informed of the case against them.
Insufficient Information Provided:
You assert that the information listed by the claimant as being provided in the PoC — such as the date of the charge, the amount outstanding, the fact that it relates to a parking charge and that it is a debt — is inadequate for understanding the full nature of the claim. For a claim to be properly articulated, the PoC should also include the specific facts and legal basis for the claim, such as:
The specific location of the alleged parking violation.
The terms and conditions that were allegedly breached.
How the Defendant is alleged to have breached those terms.
The basis on which the claimant asserts their right to impose and collect the parking charge.
You have already argued that without these crucial details, you were not in a position to understand the full nature of the claim or prepare an informed defence. Hence the draft order for the defence.
Impact of Insufficient Particulars on Your Ability to Defend:
You have already highlighted that the lack of detailed particulars prejudiced your ability to mount a proper defence. By only providing minimal details, the claimant has not given you a fair opportunity to understand the claim or gather evidence in your defence. This omission is significant, as it undermines the fundamental principle of fairness in legal proceedings, which requires both parties to have a fair opportunity to present their case.
Precedent for Adequate Particulars of Claim:
You have already referred to legal precedents where courts have held that even claims issued through MCOL
must comply with the requirement for adequate particulars. Courts have made it clear that the use of MCOL does not relieve a claimant of their duty to provide sufficient information. The transcripts provided are persuasive appeal cases where claims struck out due to inadequate particulars, reinforcing the point that the method of issuing the claim does not excuse the claimant from meeting their procedural obligations.
Based on the above, you should file a Supplementary Witness Statement which makes it clear your objection to their draft order and highlights the failing in their WS. If you feel you can improve or expand on any of the points based on the information provided above, feel free to do so. I tis your SWS. If any regulars would care to add anything, they should mention in this thread.
IN THE [NAME OF COURT]
CLAIM NUMBER: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN
[Claimant's Name] (Claimant)
AND
[Defendant's Name] (Defendant)
SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT’S NAME]
1. I, [Defendant’s Name], am the Defendant in this matter and make this supplementary witness statement in support of my application to set aside the default judgment entered against me. I strongly object to the Claimant’s proposed draft order for the reasons outlined below and provide further clarification to counter the arguments made in the Claimant's witness statement dated [date].
Objection to the Claimant’s Draft Order
2. I unequivocally object to the Claimant’s proposed draft order and do not consent to it. The Claimant’s draft order is a blatant attempt to undermine my application for a set aside and avoid liability for the costs I have incurred due to their failure to serve the claim at my correct address. The Claimant did not respond to my request for an order by consent, which forced me to incur a higher application fee (£303) for a hearing without consent. The Claimant's draft order seeks to unfairly prejudice my position by imposing unreasonable conditions and attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility for the procedural errors they have made.
Response to Paragraph 34 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement
3. In paragraph 34, the Claimant suggests that I did not receive the Court papers because I failed to update my address with the DVLA, implying that I am to blame for the misservice. However, it is the Claimant’s responsibility to ensure that the court documents are properly served. The Claimant relied solely on an outdated address obtained from the DVLA, which does not reflect my actual address at the time the claim was issued.
4. DVLA data is provided for a single, very limited reason: to allow a parking operator to invite the registered keeper to either name the driver or pay the invoice, or to inform the registered keeper that they will be liable if they do not, as well as to notify them of their rights to appeal.
5. The system, known as 'KADOE' (Keeper On Date Of Event), provides a snapshot in time of the address to enable a parking firm to send a Notice to the registered keeper. Operators are only permitted to request this information from the DVLA once. Therefore, the operators Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) Code of Practice (CoP) requires that reasonable steps be taken to ensure the address details are current before litigation. Even if a motorist later updates their V5C logbook with a new address (or if the DVLA fails to process a change in a timely manner, which is reportedly common), a parking operator will not be aware of this and cannot find out.
6. There is no safe assumption that a DVLA vehicle address is a valid address for serving a Defendant. The KADOE address is not provided as a 'court claim service address' and should not be relied upon, as it only indicates where the vehicle was kept at a historical point in time (which may not be where the keeper resides; it is simply where the car was 'kept').
7. Further, the Claimant’s assertion that they cannot be prejudiced for my alleged failure to update the DVLA is misplaced. The default judgment was entered automatically via the MCOL system without any human intervention by the defendant or the court, due to improper service of the claim. I was not given a fair opportunity to defend myself because I did not receive the claim form, which was sent to an incorrect address. The Claimant’s reliance on CPR 6.9 is also disingenuous, as they did not take reasonable steps to ascertain my current address before serving the claim.
Response to Paragraph 37 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement
8. In paragraph 37, the Claimant dismisses the significance of my Tenancy Agreement, stating that it has no impact on my liability for the Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). This is incorrect. My Tenancy Agreement forms the basis of my rights to use the parking space and makes no mention of any third-party parking management scheme, nor does it impose any requirement to display a permit. My Tenancy Agreement has supremacy of contract.
9. Since the Tenancy Agreement does not mention any requirement to display a permit or authorise a third party to issue parking charges, the terms of the agreement take precedence over any subsequent parking rules imposed by the managing agent or parking operator. In the absence of any such terms in the Tenancy Agreement, I did not consent to these rules and, therefore, cannot be held liable for breaching them.
10. The Claimant has not demonstrated that they have any contractual authority over the land or that their terms override my existing rights under the Tenancy Agreement. The Claimant’s assertion that the Tenancy Agreement has no relevance is a flawed interpretation of the supremacy of contract principle, which should protect my pre-existing rights against the imposition of new terms by a third party without my consent.
Response to Paragraph 39 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement
11. In paragraph 39, the Claimant argues that despite their inadequate Particulars of Claim (PoC), I have been able to produce a substantive application, suggesting that I have not suffered any prejudice. This argument is wholly unfounded. The fact that I was able to file a set aside application based on my knowledge of the events does not absolve the Claimant from the requirement to comply fully with CPR 16.4(1)(a). If the PoC did not provide a clear and concise account of the facts that formed the basis of the claim, then it is deficient. The Claimant also failed to provide a copy of the original PoC following the allocation judges order dated [date].
12. The PoC that I managed to obtain from the CNBC were woefully deficient and did not contain a "concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies." This inadequacy prejudiced my ability to understand the nature of the claim against me and to formulate a full defence. The court should not accept the Claimant’s attempt to shift the burden onto me when it is clear that they failed to meet the basic requirements for issuing a claim.
13. The rules of court exist to ensure fairness and clarity in legal proceedings. Compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a) is not optional; it is a mandatory requirement designed to provide a clear framework within which both parties can understand the case. The claimant's failure to meet this requirement should not be excused simply because I managed to put together a response based on my own knowledge and assumptions. Proper legal procedure requires that each party is given a fair and equal opportunity to present their case based on a clear and complete statement of facts.
14. I have already cited relevant legal precedents and principles in my original witness statement that reinforce the importance of providing adequate particulars of claim with the CPMS v Akande and CEL v Chan transcripts. Courts have consistently held that providing clear and detailed particulars is essential for fairness in legal proceedings. By not adhering to these principles, the claimant undermines the integrity of the process and prejudices my ability to defend myself.
Response to Paragraph 40 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement
15. In paragraph 40, the Claimant contends that the limitations of the Money Claim Online (MCOL) service justify their minimalistic PoC and that these particulars were sufficient for me to understand the claim. This is misleading. While MCOL may have certain character limitations, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) do not absolve the Claimant of their duty to provide sufficient particulars to allow a Defendant to understand the case against them.
16. Regardless of the method used to issue the claim (including through the CNBC via MCOL), the claimant is still required to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(a). This rule mandates that the PoC must include "a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies." The brief details allowed in the initial MCOL form do not exempt the claimant from their obligation to provide sufficient particulars to give the Defendant a clear understanding of the case against them. The claimant could have filed additional particulars after issuing the claim to comply with this requirement. They failed to do so.
17. The claimant had the opportunity to provide further particulars of claim after issuing the claim via MCOL but chose not to do so. The Civil Procedure Rules allow claimants to serve more detailed particulars of claim within 14 days of the claim form. The claimant’s reliance on the MCOL’s limitations is not a valid excuse for failing to provide the necessary details. The claimant should have served a more detailed document to ensure that I was fully informed of the case against me.
18. The information listed by the claimant as being provided in the PoC — such as (a) the date of the charge, (b) the amount outstanding, (c ) the fact that it relates to a parking charge and (d) that it is a debt — is inadequate for understanding the full nature of the claim. For a claim to be properly articulated, the PoC should also include the specific facts and legal basis for the claim, such as:
The specific location of the alleged parking violation.
The terms and conditions that were allegedly breached.
How I am alleged to have breached those terms.
The basis on which the claimant asserts their right to impose and collect the parking charge.
19. Without these crucial details, I am not in a position to understand the full nature of the claim or prepare an informed defence. Hence the draft order for the defence.
20. I have already highlighted that the lack of detailed particulars prejudice my ability to mount a proper defence. By only providing minimal details, the claimant has not given me a fair opportunity to understand the claim or gather evidence in my defence. This omission is significant, as it undermines the fundamental principle of fairness in legal proceedings, which requires both parties to have a fair opportunity to present their case.
21. I have already referred to legal precedents where courts have held that even claims issued through MCOL must comply with the requirement for adequate particulars. Courts have made it clear that the use of MCOL does not relieve a claimant of their duty to provide sufficient information. The transcripts provided are persuasive appeal cases where claims struck out due to inadequate particulars, reinforcing the point that the method of issuing the claim does not excuse the claimant from meeting their procedural obligations.
22. CPR 16.4(1)(a) requires a "concise statement of the facts" on which the Claimant relies, which the Claimant failed to provide. The details given in their PoC were minimal and did not give me adequate information to understand the legal basis of the claim, the alleged breaches, or the specific circumstances relating to the PCNs. The Claimant had the option to serve further particulars after issuing the claim but chose not to, demonstrating a lack of diligence and procedural fairness.
Conclusion
23. For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that the court dismiss the Claimant’s draft order and instead grant my original application for a set aside and for the original claim to be dismissed. Alternatively, should the court not dismiss the original claim, this will ensure that I have a fair opportunity to defend myself and that the Claimant is held accountable for the procedural deficiencies and errors they have made, including the improper service of the claim and the inadequate PoC.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this supplementary witness statement 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: [Defendant’s Signature]
Date: [Date]
Again, send as a PDF attachment by email to the hearing court and the claimants solicitor (no need to also send to the claimant) and CC in yourself, making sure that the claim number and claimant v defendant names are in the subject of the email.
