Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, have received a legal claim from Horizon Parking who are being advised by Gladstones. I intend to defend in court.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated. I will upload relevant documents shortly.

https://limewire.com/d/S3kw2#Rt27XRwViY

Do you have the original PCN?

The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) as they do not state the cause of action. They simply say that the driver breach a contract without specifying what terms in the contract were breached. It could be because the car is red and only green cars are allowed to park on that day of the week. Who knows?

With an issue date of 5th November, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th November to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 8th December 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=0

Until 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 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.

I have just recieved a response from Gladstones and they have only provided me the letter that I already have. I do not think they have any other document in their possession. Neither the PCN not the NTK. They have provided NTK reminder notification (which I already have) and It says Parking charge issue date 20 Oct 2024 and date of breach 14 September 24. That's more than 14 days in between the alleged contravention and the PCN issue. Surely this is not enforceable. Any thoughts?

NTK reminder
https://ibb.co/WNgyKx5f

Letter from Gladstones
https://ibb.co/YF70tmsv

Yes, I am.

Thank you. Appreciate your time and response.

I have not filed my defence yet only the AOS. I am waiting for Horizon to respond to my request for information under SAR which they may or may not respond to, in time.

Thank you once again for that clarification. I have submitted the defence using the wording provided. Lets see what happens next.