First you need to clarify precisely where on Rosemont Road the vehicle was parked. Based on the available evidence, portions of Rosemont Road lie within the Wharfside Business Park, a privately owned estate.
These internal roads are not adopted public highway. The outer portion of Rosemont Road (connecting to Ealing Road) is a public highway and under statutory control by Brent Council, the local highway authority.
So, inside the Wharfside estate, roads labelled “Rosemont Road” are on private land, managed privately — they are ‘relevant land’ under PoFA. Outside the estate (public section), Rosemont Road is not ‘relevant land’ — because it is under statutory control (maintained by the council).
If the vehicle was parking within the boundary of Wharfside Business Park, then the Blue Badge scheme is not applicable and the landowner can make up whatever rules they want. If the vehicle was parked on Rosemont Road outside the boundary of Wharfside Business Park, then the land is not relevant for the purposes of PoFA and the Keeper cannot be liable, only the driver, if they can evidence it.
However, you are correct to have not identified the driver as the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not compliant wth paragraph 9(2)(a) of PoFA because it does not state a "period of parking". The relevant case law is persuasive as it was appealed in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) and the judge confirmed that without a specified period of parking rather than a single timestamp, the notice was not PoFA compliant and the Keeper cannot be liable without driver identity.
The defence you have suggested has a few flaws and is not presented fully. It appears to be a hybrid. I would suggest you use the short defence we provide as the vast majority of judges will not properly read a defence is it too long and wanders about with what appear to be vague references, especially when it goes on about the government introducing new legislation etc.
The Chan and Akande references are incorrect for this defence as the claimant has provided a cause of action, even though it is not adequately pleaded. You can refer to Brennan as the NtK is not PoFA compliant.
I would advise that you use the following defence as it is short and has been checked to fit the MCOL limits and will not split words and ruin the format of the defence. It pleads a technical failure by the claimant to particularise their claim properly, in breach of CPR 16.4.
Whilst BW Legal are likely to progress all the way to a hearing, you would need to wait to see their Witness Statement, which is easily rebutted and then allows you to respond to any non technical points they raise. They never issue a proper witness statement as it will be penned by a BW Legal employee and is basically hearsay.
Before you do anything, you need to verify that the location the vehicle was parked on Rosemont Road, either within the boundary of Wharfside Business Park or outside of it.
For now I will advise you follow the standard defence procedure we provide which is as follows:
With an issue date of 24th July, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 12th August to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 26th August to submit 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 65 characters per line and 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 fails to disclose
any comprehensible cause of action.
2. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) lack sufficient detail in
respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the
Defendant and do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The alleged contract is not attached or detailed in breach
of CPR PD 16.7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause(s)
relied upon;
(c) The PoC do not explain how the Defendant allegedly breached
the contract;
(d) The PoC do not specify where, when, or for how long the
vehicle was parked before the charge was incurred;
(e) The PoC do not explain how the sum claimed is calculated,
including any interest or damages;
(f) The PoC do not distinguish between the parking charge and
any added costs;
(g) The PoC do not clarify whether the Defendant is pursued as
driver or keeper, and alternative causes of action are not
pleaded with specificity.
4. The Defendant is the registered keeper. The Claimant has not
identified the driver. The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to
comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA),
Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(a), which requires the NtK to state
the period of parking. The NtK only provides a single timestamp
and no duration, which is insufficient.
5. The Defendant relies on the persuasive appellate case of
Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H], where
requirement to specify a "period of parking" under PoFA. The
absence of a stated duration renders the NtK non-compliant and
prevents the Claimant from holding the keeper liable.
6. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims for failure to comply with CPR 16.4, especially
where the PoC fail to specify contractual terms or the alleged
breach with clarity.
7. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that further case management steps would be disproportionate and
contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out
was deemed appropriate. The Defendant invites the court to adopt
the same approach here.
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(s) of the terms and
conditions relied upon; and (b) they do not adequately set out
the reason(s) 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.
