Free Traffic Legal Advice

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 adequately 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 is the registered keeper of the vehicle. There
is no legal obligation on a keeper to identify the driver. The
burden of proof remains with the Claimant to prove driver
identity. The Defendant relies on VCS v Edward (2023) H0KF6C9C,
where HHJ Gargan held that no adverse inference may be drawn
from a keeper declining to name the driver.

5. The Defendant further submits that the Notice to Keeper
is not compliant with The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA), paragraph 9(2)(a), as it fails to specify the required
"period of parking". The Notice to Keeper (NtK) merely states a
single timestamp, which does not satisfy the statutory
requirement. This defect renders the NtK incapable of creating
keeper liability. The Defendant relies on the persuasive appeal
judgment in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023)
[H6DP632H], where HHJ Mitchell held that failure to specify a
period of parking invalidated keeper liability.

6. The Defendant asserts that the driver did not park but
merely stopped briefly to drop off a passenger. This does not
constitute "parking" in law. The Defendant relies on the
persuasive County Court appeal decision in Jopson v Homeguard
Services Ltd (2016) [B9GF0A9E], where HHJ Harris QC clarified
that temporary stopping for unloading or passenger drop-off is
not parking and does not engage any contractual liability.

7. The Defendant further submits that the driver was not
afforded the minimum consideration period required to
seek out, read, and agree to any terms. The Claimant's own
Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice (PPSCoP, Annex B,
Table B1) mandates a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes
before any contract can be formed. The Claimant has failed to
evidence that this requirement was met.

8. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out
similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately
comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of
Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or
explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

9. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found
that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. 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
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with
CPR 16.4, 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 adequately 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 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.