Free Traffic Legal Advice

That won't become due for months. First the defence has to be sent by the CNCB to the claimant and they will acknowledge receipt of it and their intent to continue. After that you will have to complete your Directions Questionnaire and then there will be the waste time mediation phone call. Only after that will it be sent to your local county court where an allocation judge will review the case and make the necessary order. The judge will either strike out the claim, order further details, if necessary or allocate a hearing date. Once the hearing date is set, there will be deadlines for the claimant to pay the hearing fee, usually around a month before the hearing date and a deadline for submitting any witness statements etc.

Just be patient.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Private Parking Solutions 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 denies liability in full and maintains that the Claimant has failed to establish a valid cause of action.

2. The Defendant requests that the claim be struck out under CPR 3.4(2) as the Amended Particulars of Claim (PoC) remain defective and fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

3. The PoC fail to particularise statutory interest, contrary to CPR PD 16.4(2), as the Claimant has not stated the date from which interest is calculated or how the sum has been reached.

4. The PoC do not specify whether the Defendant is pursued as the driver or keeper, which is an abuse of process.

5. No contractual breach occurred. The Claimant’s evidence only shows the Defendant’s vehicle reversing to exit the car park, with no evidence of parking. Stopping briefly does not constitute parking (Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E). The Defendant was momentarily stopping in the car park due to attending an appointment with their wife and was in the process of leaving when the images were taken. The Claimant’s own evidence fails to show any period of parking. The Defendant will provide further evidence at the appropriate stage regarding the lack of available patient parking and the wider parking issues at the site.

6. The PoC allege failure to display a Blue Badge but provide no evidence to support this claim. The burden of proof is on the Claimant.

7. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It fails to meet PoFA 9(2)(e), does not specify the required period of parking (PoFA 9(2)(a)), and was not served within the statutory timeframe (PoFA 9(4)(b)). The Claimant has not identified the driver and cannot hold the Defendant liable. (Excel Parking Services Ltd v Smith [2017], VCS v Edward [2023]).

8. The Claimant lacks standing to bring this claim. They have not proven landowner authority and rely on a redacted contract, which is insufficient. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of:

(a) A valid, enforceable contract.

(b) The signatory’s authority to enter into the agreement.

(c) The right to issue PCNs and commence legal action.

9. If an unredacted contract is not provided, the claim should be struck out.

10. The PoC are signed by a paralegal with no 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 its contents.

11. The Claimant has unlawfully increased the charge from £100 to £170, despite no contractual provision for this sum. This attempt at double recovery is contrary to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which held that enforcement costs are included within the parking charge itself. The DLUHC's draft impact assessment (July 2023) estimates debt recovery costs at only £8.42 per claim, not per PCN, further proving the charge is excessive.

12. The Claimant’s failure to particularise their claim, provide evidence of a breach, demonstrate PoFA compliance, or justify the additional charge renders the claim without merit.

13. The Defendant requests the court to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2). If not struck out, the claim should be dismissed due to the failure to establish a contractual breach or keeper liability.

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:

does it mean I have to go through another mediation process?