Free Traffic Legal Advice

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. No liability is admitted and no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and discloses no comprehensible cause of action.

3. The Particulars of Claim (“PoC”) are generic and fail to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16. In particular:

(a) No contract is pleaded with the particularity required, nor is any document exhibited (PD 16, para 7.3(1)).
(b) The PoC do not set out the wording of any clause(s) relied upon.
(c) The PoC do not explain the basis of any alleged breach with clarity.
(d) The PoC do not identify the location of the alleged event, the exact time, or any period said to constitute “parking”.
(e) The PoC do not state how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any interest, damages or surcharges, nor what proportion (if any) is the original charge.
(f) The PoC fail to identify whether the Defendant is pursued as driver or as keeper, impermissibly pleading alternatives without particulars.

3. The alleged event occurred in Scotland. Any contract (if formed at all) was formed there; the applicable substantive law is Scots law in accordance with the choice-of-law rules. The Defendant does not admit to being the driver. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (statutory keeper liability) does not extend to Scotland. The Claimant pleads no facts capable of fixing the registered keeper with liability under Scots law and adduces no evidence of driving. The claim therefore has no real prospect of success.

4. The PoC contain bare assertions (e.g. that “the Driver agreed to pay within 28 days”) with no pleaded facts or documents. Courts have struck out materially similar pleadings for non-compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a) (see, e.g., CEL v Chan; CPMS v Akande).

5. To the extent the Claimant purports to claim statutory interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984, the Defendant disputes that such interest is available where the governing law is Scots law; in any event the PoC do not properly plead the basis or period.

6. In the premises:

(i) the claim should be dismissed; or
(ii) alternatively, the Court is invited to strike out the PoC under CPR 3.4(2)(a)/(b) for failure to disclose reasonable grounds and/or abuse.

7. Further case management to paper over these defects would be disproportionate given the modest value.

8. The Defendant will file a separate N244 seeking summary judgment under CPR 24.2 (no real prospect of success), or in the alternative strike-out under CPR 3.4, with costs.

9. The Defendant reserves the right to bring a separate claim arising from the Claimant’s conduct once these proceedings are concluded.

The Defendant applies for summary judgment under CPR 24.2 on the whole claim on the basis that the Claimant has no real prospect of succeeding and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. The alleged parking event occurred in Scotland; the Defendant does not admit being the driver; Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not extend to Scotland and the Claimant pleads no viable basis in Scots law to fix a keeper with liability. The Particulars of Claim are also defective: they fail to identify the location, the contractual terms relied upon, the cause of action, or whether the Defendant is sued as driver or keeper (contrary to CPR 16.4 and PD16). Alternatively, the claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a)/(b). Directions sought: list and determine this application before allocation; if already allocated, treat and determine it as a CPR 3.4 application at the first hearing. Costs sought per the attached draft order.

UPON the Defendant’s application and upon reading the evidence, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Summary judgment is entered for the Defendant pursuant to CPR 24.2 and the claim is dismissed.

2. The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of the application and the claim as follows:

a. Primarily, fixed costs under Practice Direction 45 Table 1(C) (if and insofar as applicable), together with the application fee of £313, payable within 14 days; or

b. Alternatively, if allocated or treated as small claims, costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct, to include the application fee, the Defendant’s litigant-in-person time at £24 per hour, and reasonable disbursements, summarily assessed.

Alternatively to paragraph 1:

3. The claim is struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or (b).

4. Costs as in paragraph 2.

5. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [ ]

Between: National Car Parks Ltd v [Defendant]

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT]

1. I am the Defendant. I make this statement from my own knowledge and belief.

2. The claim concerns an alleged private parking charge. The Particulars of Claim do not identify the location of the alleged event, the contractual terms relied upon, the cause of action, or whether I am pursued as driver or keeper. No contract or document is exhibited.

3. The alleged event occurred in Scotland. Any contract, if formed at all, would have been formed there. I do not admit to being the driver and the Claimant has no evidence that I was the driver.

4. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (keeper liability) does not extend to Scotland. The Claimant has not pleaded any viable basis in Scots law to fix a registered keeper with liability where the driver is not identified.

5. On these facts the claim has no real prospect of success. Further, the template Particulars are so lacking in essential detail as to disclose no reasonable grounds.

6. I ask the Court to enter summary judgment under CPR 24.2 or, alternatively, to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a)/(b). I seek my costs as set out in my costs schedule.

Exhibits:

A – Extracts from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 showing territorial extent and the heading to Schedule 4.
B – Evidence that the alleged event location is in Scotland (e.g. NtK copy, photographs, map).
C – Copy of the sealed Claim Form and Particulars of Claim with omissions highlighted (including absence of location).
D – Authorities list (optional) noting strike-outs for non-compliant PoC (e.g. CEL v Chan; CPMS v Akande).

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement 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: [Type full name]


Date:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [ ]

Between: National Car Parks Ltd v [Defendant]

A. Issues

1. Whether the Claimant has any real prospect of success against the Defendant as registered keeper where the incident was in Scotland and the driver is not admitted or proved.
2. Whether the Particulars disclose reasonable grounds.

B. Facts (concise)

3. Alleged parking charge; PoC omit location, terms, cause of action, basis of liability.
4. Alleged event in Scotland; Defendant does not admit being driver.

C. Law

5. Summary judgment test: CPR 24.2.
6. Strike-out: CPR 3.4(2)(a)/(b) and pleading standards in CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD16.
7. PoFA 2012 Sch 4 creates keeper liability only in England and Wales; it does not extend to Scotland.

D. Application to facts

8. No driver admitted or evidenced; no statutory keeper liability in Scotland; no pleaded Scots-law basis. No real prospect.
9. PoC are template and fail to identify location or terms; disclose no reasonable grounds; proceeding is an abuse of process.

E. Relief

10. Summary judgment; alternatively strike-out; costs per draft order.

[/b][/b]

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No: [ ]

Between: National Car Parks Ltd v [Defendant]

Party: Defendant (litigant in person)

Application fee (N244): £313
Preparation time for application, witness statement, exhibits, skeleton, draft order: [insert hours] x £24/hour = £[ ]
Hearing preparation and attendance (estimate): [insert hours] x £24/hour = £[ ]
Printing, postage, travel: £[ ]
Total sought: £[ ]

Primary: PD 45 Table 1(C) fixed application costs if applicable plus £313 fee.
Alternative: CPR 27.14(2)(g) unreasonable conduct, seeking the above sums, summarily assessed.

Subject: [Claim No] – Defendant’s Application for Summary Judgment (CPR 24.2) or Strike-Out (CPR 3.4)

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached the Defendant’s N244, Draft Order, Witness Statement with Exhibits, Skeleton Argument and Costs Schedule. The Defence has been filed. The application seeks determination before allocation; if already allocated, it seeks determination as a CPR 3.4 application at the first hearing. Please confirm filing and advise payment of the £313 application fee.

Yours faithfully,

[Name]
[Address, email]

Certificate of Service

Claim No: [ ]

Between: National Car Parks Ltd v [Defendant]

I, [name], certify that on [date of posting] I served the Defendant’s application bundle (N244, Draft Order, Witness Statement with exhibits, Skeleton Argument, Costs Schedule) on the Claimant’s solicitors, Moorside Legal, by first-class post to: Unit 1.01, Hollinwood Business Centre, Albert Street, Failsworth, Oldham, OL8 3QL.

Service is deemed on [insert the second business day after posting, per CPR 6.26].

A proof of posting certificate dated [date] is retained.

Signed: [Type full name]

Dated: [date]

• On 14/11/2025 I submitted my defence as well as provided the "claimant" with my N244 and associated documents
• On 12/12/2025 Moorside finally acknowledged receipt of my documents...
• Heard nothing back
• On 06/01/2026 received an email from MCOL stating that Moorside withdrew the claim on 28/11/2025