IN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Euro Car Parks 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.
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 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. 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) Adequately 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.
5. 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.
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:
Don't worry about the LoC. You now have to deal with the claim itself.
With an issue date of 8th July, you had until 4pm on Monday 28th July to submit your defence. As you have submitted an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you now have until 4pm on Monday 11th August to submit your defence.
16.4 only defence:
Here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes 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 combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment 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 Euro Car Parks Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."QuoteIN THE COUNTY COURTClaim No: [Claim Number]BETWEEN:
Euro Car Parks 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.
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 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. 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) Adequately 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.
5. 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.
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
Subject: Claim [court ref] – authority to conduct litigation and signing of statements of truth
Dear Sir/Madam,
I note that the claim form/particulars are signed by Sarah Ensall, “Head of Legal”. Please confirm by return:(1) whether Ms Ensall is an authorised person for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007 with rights to conduct litigation (and her SRA/CILEX number and current practising status); or, if not,
(2) the precise exemption relied upon under Sch. 3 LSA 2007 that permits her to sign a statement of truth and otherwise conduct litigation in this matter.
For the avoidance of doubt, correspondence from your “Litigation Support” mailbox is clearly conduct of litigation. If any person conducting this litigation or signing a statement of truth is not authorised (or exempt), please confirm the steps you will take to remedy the irregularity, including re-service of any document that requires a compliant personal signature by an authorised person, and your position on costs arising.
Absent confirmation, I will reserve the right to raise this with the Court and the SRA.
Yours faithfully,
[full name]
Subject: Claim [court ref] – authority to conduct litigation (final request)
Dear Sir/Madam,
Further to my email dated [date], I note that no reply has been received in over two months. Please treat this as a final request for clarification and confirm, by return, whether Ms Sarah Ensall is an authorised person under the Legal Services Act 2007 with a right to conduct litigation, or, if not, the specific statutory exemption relied upon.
If no response is received within seven days, I will draw the matter to the court’s and the SRA’s attention.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Re: Claim [court ref]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I draw the court’s attention to a potential irregularity in the conduct of this claim. The claim form and particulars are signed by Sarah Ensall, “Head of Legal”, DCB Legal Ltd. Despite my emails of [dates], DCB Legal has not confirmed whether Ms Ensall is an authorised person with a right to conduct litigation within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007, nor identified any statutory exemption relied upon.
I respectfully ask that this correspondence be placed on the court file so the issue may be considered at allocation or any later hearing.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
The Defendant notes that the claim form and particulars were signed by Sarah Ensall, described as Head of Legal at DCB Legal Ltd. The Defendant wrote on [dates] asking DCB Legal to confirm whether Ms Ensall is an authorised person with rights to conduct litigation, or to identify the exemption relied upon under Schedule 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007. No response was received.
In Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB), the High Court held that un-authorised employees cannot conduct litigation, including signing statements of truth, even under supervision. The continued silence from DCB Legal leaves genuine doubt as to whether the claim was validly signed or whether an irregularity has occurred.
I am the Defendant in claim [number]. DCB Legal Ltd issued the claim and signed statements of truth via Ms Sarah Ensall, “Head of Legal”. I have repeatedly requested confirmation that she (and their “Litigation Support” staff) are authorised persons under the Legal Services Act 2007 or covered by an exemption. After more than two months, there has been no reply.
I am concerned that DCB Legal may be permitting un-authorised individuals to conduct litigation and sign statements of truth, contrary to the ruling in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) and the SRA Standards. Please investigate.