Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi All,

I am being pursued for being "not parked within a marked bay" at Arena Shopping Park Coventry in April 2024.

A claim was issued by BW Legal on behalf of Premier Park in July 2025 with the standard lacking PoC. I submitted the standard PoC insufficient defence (the short MCOL paste-able version). I've done the mediation using standard advice.

A court date in October has now been set, with doc submissions by 22 April.

I genuinely have no recollection of the incident and therefore have no idea where to go from here. How can I be expected submit a witness statement, when the claimant has provided absolutely no detail on what the claim is about?

One thing that may or may not be noteworthy- I was not the keeper of the vehicle. It was via a friend's work car scheme whereby they (the friend's employer) retained keepership and it was just with me (and other insured parties) as driver. I assume the POFA rules for this are something like leasing/hiring.

Any advice on how to proceed from here much appreciated.

As I mentioned, I have no idea what the circumstances were. Nor do I have the original PCN.

I would have been sent the PCN by the company at the time and appealed with a generic appeal, or the company would have told them that I was the 'keeper'.

I can share the court docs if necessary - but it's the standard PoC with zero detail seen round here 1000 times.

I'm really just seeking advice on how to approach the situation given the fact that I have no idea of the circumstances. I can't quite understand how the court could expect me to respond when the Particulars of Claim are so insufficient.

Fair enough - I suppose I'm being cocky (sorry!) cos I've literally dealt with 10 of these cases for people based on the advice here, and never has it actually gone near a court!

LETTER OF CLAIM:



CLAIM FORM:



THEIR DQ:

https://ibb.co/TM0W3h5d
https://ibb.co/chhZ71WY
https://ibb.co/gF7QJn5W
https://ibb.co/jC1FqFB
https://ibb.co/6RrBvP2r
https://ibb.co/nsyLzTcF
https://ibb.co/hJjcwSbC
https://ibb.co/TqDdvW8z
https://ibb.co/0j5c3s1D

NOTICE OF ALLOCATION:
https://ibb.co/qLw0fD42
https://ibb.co/Xf5ynk9B
https://ibb.co/F4nQLdsW
https://ibb.co/cXCfq8NF

I used this standard defence (pasted here from another post) via MCOL:

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 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 materially 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.

5. 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 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.