Free Traffic Legal Advice

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Excel Parking Services 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 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(7.5);

(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 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;

(d) The PoC do not state exactly how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(e) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(f) 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 claimant, who is legally represented, could have complied with CPR 16.4 had it served separate detailed Particulars of Claim [as it could have done pursuant to CPR PD7C.5.2(2)] but it chose not to do that.

5. The Defendant submits that as the claim is for a very modest sum, the court should consider it disproportionate and not in accordance with the overriding objective to allot to this case any further share of the court resources by ordering further PoC and a further defence, each of which will be followed further referrals to the judge for case management.

6. The correct course of action is for the court to strike out the claim due to the legally represented Claimant's clear and material failure to comply with CPR 16.4. The rules exist to ensure fairness, and the Claimant's non-compliance cannot be excused. The Defendant asserts that "rules are rules," and the Claimant has failed to follow them.

7. However, in the unlikely event that the court does not agree to strike out the claim for the Claimants failure to comply with CPR 16.4, the Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which they face and can then respond properly to the claim.

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: