The PoC are not compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and PD 16 paras 7.3–7.5. They are largely boiler-plate assertions and do not plead a concise statement of the material facts that constitute the alleged breach, nor the contractual terms relied upon.
This is the kind of generic pleading criticised in
Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (HHJ Murch, 2023) and similar parking claims.
Missing and defective (non-compliance) items:
1. Material facts of the breach not pleaded – CPR 16.4(1)(a)/PD 16 para 7.
• The PoC never states what the driver did wrong: e.g. no allegation of “overstay by X minutes beyond a free period of Y”, “failure to pay tariff of £…”, “no permit displayed”, or “stopping where prohibited”.
• ANPR entry/exit times are recited, but there is no pleaded maximum stay, tariff paid/unpaid, or grace/consideration period, so the facts said to amount to a breach are absent.
2. Terms relied upon not identified – PD 16 para 7.3–7.5.
• No wording, summary, or extract of the sign’s key terms is pleaded (charge amount, the specific term said to be breached, or any “no stopping” prohibition).
• If reliance is on a contract by conduct via signage, PD 16 para 7.5 requires the conduct and the terms relied upon to be stated.
3. Nature of the cause of action unclear.
• The PoC uses “breach of contract” language but simultaneously presents the £170 as a “charge”. It does not plead whether the £170 is (a) a contractual sum agreed upon breach/parking, or (b) damages for breach. This ambiguity is material because the legal tests differ.
4. Unexplained uplift to £170.
• he “principal” is pleaded as £170, but no facts or contractual term are pleaded to justify any sum above the usual core parking charge (commonly £100). If this includes “debt recovery” or “admin” sums, those must be pleaded with a legal basis (contractual term or statute). None is set out.
5. Standing/authority not pleaded (material fact).
• There is no pleading that the Claimant had authority from the landholder to offer contracts and enforce charges in its own name at the material time. This is a material fact that should be pleaded in outline.
6. Location insufficiently particularised.
• “Car park:— Bellevue” is vague; no full site address or clear description enabling the Defendant to identify the precise locus and signage relied upon. While not fatal alone, it contributes to the overall lack of particularity.
7. Period of parking not pleaded.
• Only ANPR entry/exit timestamps are given. No pleaded period of parking (as opposed to circulation/queueing/exit time), which is often material to the alleged breach.
Taken together, the PoC do not provide the “concise statement of the facts” required by CPR 16.4(1)(a) and do not comply with PD 16 paras 7.3–7.5 for contract claims based on signage/conduct. They leave the Defendant guessing as to the contractual term allegedly breached and the precise facts said to give rise to liability, and they fail to plead a basis for any uplift beyond the core charge. Courts have treated materially similar boiler-plate pleadings as defective (including the persuasive appellate court decision in this very same claimant v Chan [2023]) with the usual remedies ranging from an order for Further and Better Particulars to strike-out where appropriate.
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 PD 16, para 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 materially similar 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 PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent 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 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
