Free Traffic Legal Advice

I hope cp8759 sees this

In October 2023, I found myself parking in a non-disabled bay at Manchester's Central Hospital car park. Normally, I make it a point to visit the office to submit my car registration number, whether I'm parked in a disabled bay or a regular one. However, due to unexpected roadworks outside my block of flats, my usual 10 to 15-minute journey to the hospital stretched into a frustrating 40 minutes, causing me to arrive late for a crucial appointment regarding a bowel investigation.

Despite having displayed my badges, I rushed to the hospital without making a stop at the office to hand over my registration number. As a result, when the parking ticket arrived—I'm uncertain whether it was placed on my car window or sent in the post—I took the initiative to write to "Parking Eye", explaining the situation in detail. Regrettably, my appeal was denied, setting off a chain of correspondence that I have recently documented (with the help of my brother, see below).

Compounding my difficulties is the fact that I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2021. Thankfully, it seems to have been caught early, and I began my medication promptly. While I primarily experience tremors on my left side, the most significant challenge I face is my memory. I have a tendency to open mail, set it in a pile, and then all too easily forget about it. When my brother visited in mid-March, he diligently sifted through my paperwork and stumbled upon a "Letter of Claim" from "dcblegal Ltd". Shortly thereafter, on March 26, I further received a formal letter from "HM Courts & Tribunals Service", accompanied by a CLAIM FORM classed as number "N1SDT" from the "Civil National Business Centre", complete with an official County Court stamp.

Apparently I have the option of replying in either 14 or 28 days, the wording of the difference between each is such that I do not understand the difference !!!, but I understand I have 28 days to decide what to do with your help. i hope that the information I send will be sufficient for you, however please feel free to ask for any additional information. if it is possible to supply after all this time, I will certainly supply it.

Thanks for any advice what to do next. Shout I complete the form and pay the fine? or should I try and defend it again. Or should I carry on doing nothing, as I have been doing for the past 2 years?

Thank you in advance

glpride (Roy)


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Considering that ParkingEye have their own in house legal team, when they farm their claims out to DCB Legal, that means they know that they are on shaky ground. If you follow the advice that follows, you will not be paying a penny to anyone.

With an issue date of 26th March, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th April to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 28th April 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=0

Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order and relevant transcripts that go with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.

When you're ready you send all the documents as a single PDF attachment (in the order of 'defence', 'draft order' and then the 2 'transcripts') in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of ParkingEye Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

ParkingEye Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant

---

DEFENCE

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 CPR PD 16(7.5);

(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 cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.

5. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4.(1)(a). The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Failed to explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) 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.

6. 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 for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

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:

Draft Order for the defence

CEL v Chan Transcript

CPMS v Akande Transcript

If you want an editable MS Word file with everything in a single document which you can then save/export as a single PDF file when ready to send, use this:

MS Word .docx file for defence [CPR 16.4(1)(a)]