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.
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]
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.
Subject: Your email of 17 November 2025 — Ref: [reference] — Bath Street Car Park, Ilkeston
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your email. Your attachment is merely a copy PCN. It does not address the deficiencies I identified, nor does it comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims or PD-PAC 6(a) and 6(c). In particular, you have still failed to provide:• Contemporaneous photographs of the entrance and on-site signage as displayed on the material date, with a site plan (locations/sizes/wording);
• Records showing when and how the historic “first hour free” was withdrawn and how motorists were notified at the point of entry;
• ANPR in/out logs and payment/machine logs for the visit;
• The landholder agreement in force (including authority to enforce and to litigate);
• An itemised legal basis for the sums claimed, including the £70 add-on.
Your 11 December deadline is rejected. The PAP affords 30 days to respond after service of a compliant Letter of Claim with key documents. You have not supplied those, so the PAP clock has not begun.
There are already live proceedings between the same parties for PCNs from the same site and contiguous period (June–Aug 2024): Claim No. [xxxx]. You are on notice that issuing a second claim will be opposed as an abuse per Henderson v Henderson; Johnson v Gore Wood; Aldi v WSP, and upon determination of the first action it will in any event be barred by cause of action estoppel/merger. Any such claim will attract an immediate CPR 3.4(2)(b) strike-out application and a CPR 27.14(2)(g) costs request (LiP rate £24/hour).
For the avoidance of doubt: the driver is already known to your client; PoFA is irrelevant. I do not consent to amendment or consolidation of the existing proceedings.
Please either (a) provide the above documents within 30 days so that meaningful Protocol engagement can occur, or (b) confirm that no separate proceedings will be issued.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[Email]
Defendant in Claim No. [xxxx]