Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all

I parked in a car park a year ago and at the time had 2 cars, i paid on ringo but used the wrong car on the app.

I got a ticket but have ignored it for a year as I figured they would go away like the others but got this letter the other week which makes me think they are about to actually go to court, by the way the car park has gone now.

I thought about their response link on their website showing my receipt for parking and playing dumb that I clicked on the wrong car but then I thought I should ask you guys first before doing anything.

Any help greatfully appreciated

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Awesome, thanks so much, and I sure will.

Respond with this:

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your reference 104273.42439

I refer to your recent response.

Your refusal to provide the landowner contract until 14 days before a hearing is a clear breach of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct. The contract is a key document which must be disclosed now, not deferred until litigation.

By deliberately withholding this information, you are frustrating the Protocol’s stated purpose of enabling parties to understand each other’s position and avoid unnecessary proceedings. Issuing a claim without first complying will be premature and unreasonable.

For the avoidance of doubt, until you provide a compliant Letter Before Claim with the requested documents, the 30-day period to respond has not begun. Any claim issued beforehand will be met with an application for a stay, a request for costs sanctions, and a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding your conduct.

I invite you to reconsider your position.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

How have you come to that conclusion based on the thread so far?

Post what you’ve received so we can see it, but if you get un-muddled and follow the advice you’ll get here you won’t pay a penny.

Hi all

Here is what I recieved.

FYI they didnt ever reply to my email.

From what I am reading I have 14 days to respond, help gratefully appreciated

We advise against uploading directly as there is very limited space - there is advice on using Imgur here: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

With an issue date of 28th August you have until 4pm on Tuesday 16th September to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 30th 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=0

MCOL CPR16.4 only defence

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 adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

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 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 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, 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.