Free Traffic Legal Advice

To help us provide the best advice, please read the following thread carefully and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide

As a starting point we could do with seeing:

• The whole Claim Form (redact personal info and MCOL password, leave all dates and times visible)
• Copies of any appeals or other correspondence you have sent to the parking company

Hi,

Please see attached as requested form, thank you for your help.

The below is the defence I want to make is it ok?

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that they are liable for the entirety of the claim.


2. The Particulars of Claim are vague and fail to provide sufficient details of the alleged breach. The Claimant has not specified the contractual terms that were allegedly breached, nor provided evidence of signage, photographs, or a copy of any contract. The claim therefore fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and should be struck out.


3. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver on the material date. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has not complied with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. In the absence of such compliance, the Defendant as registered keeper cannot be held liable.


4. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that:
a. A valid and binding contract existed with the driver.
b. The signage was adequate, visible, and capable of forming a contract.
c. The Claimant had authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) and to bring legal proceedings.


5. The Defendant further denies that the £100 charge represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss or a proportionate charge. It is an unenforceable penalty and unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.


6. The additional sum of £60.00 contractual costs is an abuse of process.

In Southampton (Claim No. F0DP201T, 11/07/2019, HHJ Taylor), the court ruled that such added sums were unlawful, struck out claims, and held that adding debt collection costs was an abuse.

In Gloucester (Claim No. G4QZ465V, 21/06/2021, HHJ Murch), the judge again ruled that the £60 add-on was an abuse and struck it out.

These judgments make clear that such charges constitute unlawful double recovery, since all costs of collection are already factored into the parking company’s business model and the £100 PCN.



7. The Defendant disputes the Claimant’s entitlement to statutory interest under s69 of the County Courts Act 1984, given that no valid debt exists.


8. For the above reasons, the Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Why do you think we or anyone needs to see the rest of the blank forms that come with an N1SDT claim pack? Please delete those useless images.

The ONLY form we are interested in is the N1SDT Claim Form that has the Particulars of Claim (PoC). As suspected, the incompetents at Gladstones have issued the claim on behalf of EPS.

You have to imagine that you know nothing about this PCN and the very first you know about it is the Claim Form itself. From the PoC in that claim form, you have no idea what the cause of action is which is a direct breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) and should be struck out.

The advice I provide is the recommendation that I suggest you go with. Of course, you are free to ignore it, but the track recored speaks for itself.

With an issue date of 15th August you have until 4pm on Wednesday 3rd September to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th 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

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 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(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 identical 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 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.

Hi,

I filed the defence on the MCOL website. But I received another pack from the Gladstones. Do I need to fill that in as well or just wait for the court on the defence pack?

Kind Regards

Hi,

I have uploaded the documents. I have also had a court letter to say notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track and I have until 2nd of October to fill in directions questionnaire

From the pack they sent the parking sign on the photo and then the one they have put a clear photo of have different information on them

https://imgur.com/a/QD0Qyov

I cannot see anything in your Imgur link.

Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf

Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:


When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.

enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk should work. Make sure you CC yourself also.