Free Traffic Legal Advice

Why have you deleted the original claim form? Are PPS still being represented by Gladstones?

The DJ ordered PPS to serve further PoC by 18th February, which they have compiled with. You now have until 18th March to submit an amended defence. I will review the PoC they have submitted and once I have had a chance to carefully review them, I will come back with your amended defence.

Quote from: b789 on February 13, 2025, 06:18:26 pm

Why have you deleted the original claim form? Are PPS still being represented by Gladstones?

The DJ ordered PPS to serve further PoC by 18th February, which they have compiled with. You now have until 18th March to submit an amended defence. I will review the PoC they have submitted and once I have had a chance to carefully review them, I will come back with your amended defence.

Do I need to submit updated defence or can I argue on the day in the court?

I was clicking on links in earlier posts that referred to the claim form but they all now only show the new order.

Thinking aloud - (and caveat, I know the above aren't necessarily in any particular order) in terms of the order of the points for the amended defence, I'd be minded to lead* with:

• No evidence of the failure to display a Blue Badge.
• Only photographic evidence of vehicle stationary for 2 minutes.

I say this on the basis that these are points that would be strong defence points even if PPS' PoC were otherwise perfect, and even if their notice had been PoFA compliant etc. (the fact that there are others issues to highlight then strengthens your position further)

* aside from any matters raised as preliminary issues

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Private Parking Solutions (London) Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

1. This is the Defendant’s Amended Defence submitted in response to the Claimant’s Further Particulars of Claim, as ordered by District Judge Newman. The Defendant continues to deny liability for the entirety of the claim and maintains that the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action.

2. As a preliminary matter, the Defendant requests that the claim be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) as the Amended Particulars of Claim (PoC) remain defective and do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

3. The PoC fail to properly particularise the statutory interest claimed, as required by CPR PD 16.4(2). The Claimant has not provided the date from which interest is calculated or a clear explanation of how the sum has been reached.

4. The Claimant’s PoC do not specify whether the Defendant is pursued as the driver or the keeper, contrary to the requirement that a claimant should not plead alternative causes of action. This is an abuse of process.

5. The Claimant’s evidence does not support the assertion that the Defendant breached any contractual terms. The only images provided show the vehicle in the process of reversing in order to exit the car park, with the driver still inside. The total time span of the images is 25 seconds. This is not parking by any reasonable definition.

6. The PoC claim that the Defendant failed to display a Blue Badge but fail to provide any evidence that a Blue Badge was not displayed. The burden of proof rests with the Claimant to establish that a contravention occurred, and they have failed to do so.

7. The Claimant has attempted to increase the charge from £100 to £170, but there is no mention of this additional charge in the contractual signage. The first reference to the £70 increase appears in a reminder letter five weeks after the alleged contravention. Since the contractual terms at the time of the alleged event did not include provision for this sum, it is not lawfully recoverable.

8. The PoC have been signed by a paralegal rather than a person with direct knowledge of the facts. Under CPR 22.1(6) and PD 22, a legal representative may only sign a statement of truth if they have verified the contents personally. The Claimant’s statement of truth hearsay and may therefore be defective, raising concerns about the validity of the claim.

9. If the court does not strike out the claim, the Defendant submits that no contractual breach could have occurred.

10. The Defendant did not park in the location as alleged. The images provided by the Claimant show that the vehicle was moving and occupied. There is no evidence that it was ever stationary for long enough to constitute parking. In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, it was held that stopping briefly does not constitute parking.

11. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by the Claimant does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It fails to include the wording required by PoFA 9(2)(e), does not specify the period of parking as required by PoFA 9(2)(a), and was not served within the statutory timeframe of 14 days required under PoFA 9(4)(b).

12. The Claimant has not provided any evidence that the Defendant was the driver. Under CPR 16.4(1)(a), the Claimant must clearly state the basis of the claim, but the PoC do not specify whether the Defendant is pursued as the driver or the keeper. In the persuasive appellate decisions of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith (2017) and VCS v Edward (2023), the court held that a claimant must prove that the defendant was the driver if PoFA compliance is not met.

13. Since the Claimant has failed to identify the Defendant as the driver and has also failed to comply with PoFA, the Defendant cannot be held liable for this charge.

14. The Claimant has failed to provide proof that they have authority to bring this claim. The Defendant does not believe that the Claimant is the landowner and puts them to strict proof that they have a valid contract with the landowner granting them authority to issue parking charges and commence legal proceedings in their own name. In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, it was held that a parking operator must have clear landowner authority to enforce parking charges.

15. The Claimant’s failure to provide clear contractual terms, evidence of a breach, proof of PoFA compliance, or proper particulars regarding the sums claimed renders the claim wholly without merit.

16. The Defendant respectfully requests that the court strike out the claim in its entirety under CPR 3.4(2). If the court does not strike out the claim, the Defendant requests that it be dismissed due to the failure to establish a contractual breach or keeper liability.

17. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to demonstrate that they have the legal right to issue parking charges and commence legal proceedings in their own name. In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, the Court of Appeal ruled that a private parking operator must have clear and specific landowner authority to enforce parking charges.

18. A contract where the identity and authority of the signatory are unknown is legally defective and cannot be relied upon as proof of standing. The redactions make it impossible to verify whether the contract grants the Claimant the necessary rights to issue and enforce parking charges.

19. Given that the Claimant has failed to provide an unredacted copy of the contract, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that:

(a) The contract is valid and enforceable.
(b) The signatory had the necessary authority to enter into the agreement.
(c) The contract specifically grants the Claimant the right to issue PCNs and initiate legal proceedings in their own name.

20. If the Claimant fails to provide a fully unredacted contract proving landowner authority, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has no legal standing to pursue this claim and that the claim should be struck out or dismissed

21. The Claimant has provided the Defendant with a redacted version of the alleged landowner contract, removing the signature, name, and position of the signatory. There is no confirmation as to whether the copy submitted to the court is similarly redacted.

22. The Defendant submits that this redacted contract is insufficient to establish the Claimant’s legal standing to bring this claim. The identity and authority of the signatory are crucial to determining whether the Claimant has the right to issue and enforce parking charges.

23. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to demonstrate that they have a valid and enforceable contract with the landowner or their authorised agent. A contract where the identity and authority of the signatory are unknown is legally defective and cannot be relied upon as proof of standing.

24. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the contract is valid and that the signatory had the necessary authority to enter into the agreement. The Defendant further requests confirmation from the court as to whether the version provided to the court is redacted in the same manner as the version disclosed to the Defendant.

25. The Claimant's failure to provide the Defendant with the full, unredacted contract while relying on it as evidence is a breach of CPR 31.6 (standard disclosure) and CPR 31.14 (inspection of documents referred to in a statement of case). This selective disclosure prejudices the Defendant’s ability to fairly challenge the Claimant’s legal standing and amounts to unreasonable conduct.

26. If the Claimant fails to provide a fully unredacted contract proving landowner authority, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has no legal standing to pursue this claim and that it should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) or dismissed.

27. The Claimant has added a £70 debt recovery charge despite no mention of this fee in the contractual agreement. This contradicts ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Supreme Court confirmed that enforcement costs are included within the parking charge itself.

28. In Beavis, the court ruled that the parking charge was set at a level that incorporated the costs of enforcement and debt recovery. Paragraph 98 of the judgment explicitly states that the charge includes “the costs of construction, maintenance and enforcement” as well as “the costs of chasing up non-payers.”

29. The Claimant’s attempt to impose an additional £70 fee is an attempt at double recovery, seeking to reclaim enforcement costs separately when the Beavis ruling confirms that such costs were already accounted for within the parking charge.

30. Furthermore, the Claimant has provided no evidence that this charge was genuinely incurred or that it represents a contractual loss. The Private Parking Code of Practice: Draft Impact Assessment (DLUHC, July 2023) estimates the actual unit cost per successful debt recovery at only £8.42, further demonstrating that this charge is arbitrary and disproportionate.

31. The Defendant submits that this £70 charge is not a legitimate recoverable cost and invites the court to strike it out as an abuse of process.

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: