Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

Private parking ticket from last year, allegedly for the heinous crime of spending 17 minutes in a 10 minute spot.  HX and IAS both upheld the PCN on appeal.  County Court Claim form recieved, I've done the Acknowledgment Of Service and have drafted a defence.  It's in this dropbox folder if anyone would have time to look over it and give me their opinion.  Thanks in advance.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/3f3m4602iwtjgblgwzxig/ABhwPb3WescsKlCsYAz3eTg?rlkey=padw4kgmaa6oggys0ygqt5v4k&st=aelr7cno&dl=0

We also need to know the issue date of the Claim. Some parts of your initial appeal were correct but others not.

However, the NtK was not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA and so, the Keeper cannot be liable, only the driver. HX do not know the identity of the driver unless the Keeper blabbed it, inadvertently or otherwise.

Which bulk litigator are HX using to file their claim? Show us the Particulars of Claim (PoC). Show us your draft defence.

We also need to know the issue date of the Claim.

^^

Please stop sharing that confidential photo of FTLA's HQ.

Assume that the very first you know about this matter is the Claim form. How on earth can you figure out from those PoC what the defendant is supposed to have done? Simply stating that the defendant breached a contract without specifying what terms were breached and how, let alone the rest of it, is a serious breach of CPR 16.4. If the losers at Gladstones cannot fit the detail that is required into the MCOL because of the character limitation, then they should issue further particulars within 14 days of the claim.

Did you provide an email address for service when you completed the AoS? This makes a difference as to the date before which you must not submit the defence. If you did not proved an email address, then working back from the latest date that the claimant could serve further PoC (Monday 3rd February), thus correcting their error, is that they must be sent (posted) no later than Thursday, 30th January 2025 to ensure deemed service by 3rd February 2025.

If you did provide an email address with your AoS, then if using email or other instantaneous means, the further PoC must be sent by 3rd February 2025, assuming the method ensures same-day receipt.

However, you do not want to alert the morons at Gladrags that they have screwed up and so you must not submit the defence before Tuesday 4th February. If you submit the defence before those dates, depending on whether you gave them an email address or not, then they could try and correct their error.

So, having submitted an AoS, you now have until 4pm on Monday 17th February to submit your defence which means that you have plenty of time but should NOT submit it before Friday 31st January if no email address was provided with the AoS or NOT before Tuesday 4th February if an email address was provided with the AoS.

As this is a claim issued by the useless so called professionals at Gladstones, a firm of failed wannabe legals who cannot even complete a simple MCOL claim without screwing it up because they fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a),you only need the following as your defence. All you need to do is edit your name and the claim number and then sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and dating it. There is nothing to edit in the attached transcripts or the attached draft order.

When you have completed the defence, you save all the documents as PDF files and attach them to an email addressed to cliamresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and you CC in yourself. Make sure that the email subject contains the claim number and in the body of the email you simply put: "Please find attached the defence, associated transcripts and a draft order in the matter of HX Car Park Management Ltd v [your full name] claim no.: [claim number]".

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

HX Car Park Management 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 valid cause of action.

Preliminary Matter

2. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with the mandatory requirements of CPR 16.4(1)(a), which states that the PoC must include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. The PoC are so deficient in particulars that they fail to disclose a cause of action, making it impossible for the Defendant to plead properly.

3. Specifically, the PoC lack:

(a) The specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;

(b) The precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;

(c) Attachment or details of the contract relied upon, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.5;

(d) Particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;

(e) An explanation of how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) 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. In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the court strikes out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) on the basis that:

• The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; and

• The statement of case is an abuse of process.

5. 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.

Alternative Submission

6. The Defendant submits that the correct course of action is for the court to strike out the claim due to the Claimant's clear and material failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). 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 with the persuasive nature of the cited appellate decisions, the Defendant submits the following alternative:

• The court should make an order requiring the Claimant to provide the following further and better detailed particulars:

(a) Set out the specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;

(b) Specify the precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;

(c) Provide attachment or details of the contract relied upon, as required by CPR PD 16.7.5;

(d) Provide particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;

(e) Explain how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) Clarify 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.

8. Without such particulars, the Defendant is unable to properly respond to the claim, resulting in unfairness and prejudice.

Draft Order

9. A draft order is appended to this defence, which the Defendant requests the court to consider adopting should the claim not be struck out at this stage.

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:

CEL v Chan transcript

CPMS v Akande transcript

Draft Order for the defence

Hi again.

An attempt at defence was made using b789's text from 27th Jan in this thread.  We are now at Witness Statement stage and I've written one which is in the FTLA folder here https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/3f3m4602iwtjgblgwzxig/ABhwPb3WescsKlCsYAz3eTg?rlkey=padw4kgmaa6oggys0ygqt5v4k&st=aelr7cno&dl=0

Please can those with more experience than me in these matters look over it and give opinion / any pointers?

Thanks in advance

When was this allocated to your local court. What were the orders given? What are the deadlines for the claimant to pay the £27 trial fee? What is the date of the hearing? Have you received a copy of the claimants WS yet?

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/efpzi37uc313lxf2ag61e/allocation-instructions.pdf?rlkey=yn267zh1na0fiathq05ac9uk5&st=3xvztftp&dl=0

No WS received from claimant yet

You did not use the defence I advised. Why not? You have thrown away the perfect CPR 16.4(1)(a) failure by not referencing or including the Chan and Akande transcripts!

I used exactly the defence you advised.  You advised it on 27th of January in this thread.  I submitted it as a defence.  The claim was not struck out, instead it has rumbled on to the stage we are now at.  I understand why you think differently and have now updated the dropbbox folder with the actual defence I submitted to the court and claimant.

The original DropBox link you provided showed a long MSE template defence.

Carefully read the whole order and tell me if there is any mention in there about the parties being required to submit copies of all documents they intend to rely on no later than 14 days before the hearing date or some such deadline.

The order says that the claimant has to pay the £27 by 4pm on 17th September or the claim gets struck out.

It also says that all documents relevant to the case must be submitted by me to the claimant and the court by 4pm on 24th September, i.e. a week later.  The same requirement is placed on the claimant, i.e. they must serve all docs to me and the court by the same date.

The order is in the dropbox folder if you want to see it for yourself for any reason.