Why do you think that you did not receive any notice or LoC? Is the address on your V5C showing your current address? One of the main reasons people get CCJs out of the blue is because they did not update their V5C after a previous move. Updating your drivers licence doesn't automatically update your V5C.
Obviously they found you through credit reference search. However, if you were not served with the claim and you knew nothing about it until the claim itself. They have not complied with the Pre Action Protocols.
You are entitled to make a CPR 31.14 request and should send the following to the Claimant, preferably by email to info@sipcarparks.co.uk and CC yourself:
Subject: CPR 31.14 Request – Claim [number]
Dear Sirs,
I acknowledge service. Please provide, within 7 days, copies of the documents mentioned in your Particulars:
1. the contract/signage terms and site plan for Water Street, Manchester;
2. NtD (if any), NtK, all images/logs, and event record for 06/01/2023 13:30:24 ref 149256680;
3. landowner authority/contract;
4. the basis and calculation of the £60.
If you contend any item is not “mentioned”, explain why. Absent compliance I will seek directions and costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Name & address]
You should also send SIP a Subject Access Request (SAR) to their DPO at dataprotection@sipcarparks.co.uk and again, CC yourself.
Subject: Data Subject Access Request – [Full name], VRM [ABC123], Claim [number]
Dear Sirs,
Please supply all personal data you hold regarding me and VRM [ABC123], including all letters/emails, images, ANPR/handheld logs, timeline/system notes, DVLA requests/responses, and the underlying PCN record for ref 149256680 (06/01/2023). Attached: proof of ID and proof of address.
[Name]
DO not call them. Everything must be in writing.
You can do the Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) now but do not submit the defence provided below until you have received responses to the above emails. Only submit it by the deadline if you have not heard back from them by then. If you can show us their responses, there may be a need to tweak the defence slightly.
For now, take this into account... With an issue date of 7th August you have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th August to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th September to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
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 adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
3. For the avoidance of doubt, even if the phrase “Vehicle not permitted & grace period exceeded” were taken to be a minimal compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), the PoC remain defective. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The claim is put on a contractual footing but no written terms are pleaded or exhibited, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.3(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 pleaded bases are internally inconsistent (“vehicle not permitted” vs “grace period exceeded”): either parking was prohibited (no contractual offer) or it was permitted subject to terms; it cannot be both.;
(d) No period of parking is pleaded, nor facts explaining how any breach is said to have occurred (a timestamp alone is insufficient);
(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, 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. 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 adequately 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 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 CPR PD 7C.5.2(2), but chose not to do so.
AND upon the claim being for a very modest sum such that the court considers it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court's resources by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, each followed by further referrals to the judge for 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 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
